They are provided without further introduction.

Matt Adams

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/11/23/2997682/major-talent.html

http://rumbunter.com/2011/11/30/the-impact-1b-the-pittsburgh-pirates-need-was-ohhh-so-close/

Steven Ramos

http://www.tracypress.com/view/full_story/16547869/article-Ramos-among-top-baserunners-in-Appalachian-League?instance=sports_lead_story_left_column

Nick Martini

http://crystallake.patch.com/articles/prairie-ridge-grad-adjusting-to-life-in-pro-baseball

Jonathan Cornelius

http://landolakes.patch.com/articles/gators-grad-cornelius-pushes-through-first-season-of-pro-baseball

Chuckie Fick

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/sep/21/fick-to-represent-his-country-in-baseball/

Nick Gillung

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110922/BASEBALL03/309229906/-1/SPORTS1001

John Sickels on C.J. McElroy

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/9/23/2444678/major-league-sons-bloodline-players-from-the-2011-draft

Bonus: Matt Holliday’s hometown paper in Stillwater, OK caught up with him following the World Series.

http://newsok.com/matt-holliday-revels-in-his-teams-championship/article/3627021?custom_click=pod_headline_mlb-national-league-news

Late addition: Skip Schumaker and Nick Punto attended a baseball conference near their Southern California homes.

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/world-series-champion-st-louis-cardinals-in-mission-viejo

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.
Follow TCN on Google+.

Following his Sunday comments supporting an opposing player and in the process, disagreeing with a teammate and his manager, Byrd may need more than a fortified helmet when he returns to Chicago.

From his centerfield perch on defense, Byrd had a good view of Matt Holliday’s hard slide which took out Cubs shortstop Starlin Castro during Saturday’s game. It was a crucial play that helped St. Louis extend an inning in which they erased a Chicago lead and went on to a 13-5 win.

“I was hurt on the ground and didn’t think too much about the runs,” Castro told ESPN after the game. “He was really out of the base [path]. He didn’t have a chance to touch the base. He slid hard, real hard. It wasn’t clean.”

Cubs manager Mike Quade was tossed from the game by umpire Derryl Cousins after an automatic double play was not called. A heated debate ensued.

“I applaud somebody who will go in hard to try and break up a double play,” Quade told ESPN. “But my thing is, it’s not a legal slide to me. The way Starlin was clipped, in retrospect, the bag was the last thing on his mind. They don’t [call an out] unless it’s blatant. The rules are there for a reason.”

On his blog, Byrd defended Holliday. While what he said was hardly controversial in a general sense, it is bound to cause him problems since it can be perceived he is not backing his teammate.

Wrote Byrd, “The dude was trying to break up a double play. Holliday plays hard. You have to appreciate the way he plays. He’s not labeled as a dirty player. He didn’t go spikes up. The only thing that made it look bad was that he slid late. That’s it. Whether he could reach the bag or not, I don’t know. If I’m in that situation, and I’m playing to win, trying to get to a pennant race, I’d do the same exact thing. Even though we’re second to last and in fifth place in this division, I still try to flip infielders. It’s as simple as that. I try to play winning baseball, and that’s all that is.

“You call a play dirty when a guy is going out there trying to hurt somebody and that’s not what he did. If Holliday wants to go in and hurt somebody he will. He’s 6-4, 235, 240 pounds. That’s him playing hard. The way we take it when we see it is we want to defend our players at the time. When you go back and really look at it and how the game is played and how it should be played, there’s nothing wrong with that. If the umpires want to make their call and say he was too far off, so be it. Being dirty or being malicious, it’s not even close.”

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

In some ways, it feels like it happened so long ago, the signing of then-free agent outfielder Matt Holliday didn’t actually occur during 2010. In reality, it did. The largest contract in St. Louis Cardinals team history was closed last January 5.

In my assessment, not only was the magnitude of the contract, $120 million, enough for the story to rank this high, so is the duration of the commitment of the two parties to each other – seven years, with an eighth-year option that could take the deal to $136 million. The option year would make it the longest contract in team history to go with it already being the top dollar deal. A no-trade clause helps ensure it will be completed.

Some wonder if the Cardinals weren’t bidding against themselves last winter, but they appeared to benefit from the wait as well. Early word from the Scott Boras camp was that Holliday was initially expecting to equal Mark Teixeira’s eight-year, $180 million deal with the Yankees from the previous winter. When all was said and done, he received substantially less.

Keeping Holliday was not an option; it was a necessity

It appeared obvious the Cardinals were in a position they needed to keep Holliday for a multitude of reasons.

Part of keeping Albert Pujols happy and hopefully in St. Louis for at least as long as Holliday will now be is to maintain a competitive team around him and specifically protection behind him in the lineup. That is clearly Holliday’s place.

Once Jason Bay officially came to terms with the New York Mets last January 4, there were no other free agents on the market of anywhere near Holliday’s quality to whom the Cardinals could have turned had he been lost to another club.

Further, it is reasonable to suspect that St. Louis’ “sunken costs” in Holliday played a factor in their aggressiveness in ensuring they kept him. They had paid a very high price when acquiring Holliday from Oakland in July 2009, three top prospects. Even with a pair of compensation picks had Holliday signed elsewhere, the Cards would have netted down one prospect and lost a number of important man-years of player development.

Holliday delivered

Holliday lived up to his part of the agreement in 2010, earning a National League All-Star berth, a Silver Slugger and the annual Darryl Kile Award selected by his peers for being “a good teammate, a great friend, a fine father and a humble man.”

The Cardinals cleanup hitter batted .312, fifth-best in the NL, tied for seventh with 103 RBI, tied for fourth in multi-hit games with 52, was third in hits with 86, fourth in total bases with 317, sixth in on-base percentage (.390) and extra base hits (.74) and seventh in slugging (.532).

In an impressive combination of power and hustle, Holliday led the Cardinals with 45 doubles, tying for second-most in the league, while also scratching out a club-best 12 infield hits.

Defensively, Holliday tied for ninth among all NL outfielders with eight assists and was first among left fielders. It was the first time a Cardinal led left fielders in outfield assists since Bernard Gilkey had 19 in 1993.

The Cardinals did not finish strongly, but don’t blame Holliday. In the final month, he put together the 2010 team-best 16-game hitting streak, the second longest in his career. During the period of September 9-24, Holliday batted .431 (25-for-58) with two home runs and 12 RBI. His .364 average during September/October was second-highest in the NL.

Despite early-season concerns by some about Holliday’s batting average with runners in scoring position, he proved his “clutchiness” with 17 game-winning RBI. That total was second on the Cardinals and tied for third in the NL.

Holliday appears poised to do it for at least the next six years as well. Will he do it alone or with Pujols batting in front of him?

Link to The Cardinal Nation Blog’s top 20 stories of the year countdown

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

In the previous post, we looked at the potential of the St. Louis Cardinals’ middle three hitters in 2011, Albert Pujols, Matt Holliday and Lance Berkman, through a comparison of their career milestones to the famous 2004 MV3 of Pujols, Jim Edmonds and Scott Rolen.

In that analysis, I left Pujols out since the aggregate of his numerous accomplishments since 2004 would have tipped the balance too strongly in favor of the 2011 trio.

For the poll topic at the conclusion of the article, I slipped in a list of other top Cardinals duos during the Pujols era, asking readers to select the “best”. In a close race, at the time I type this, the pair having received the most votes was from 2005, Edmonds and Larry Walker.

Not being entirely satisfied where I left the subject, I decided to make another quick run at it. In this case, I summed the OPS+ of Pujols and his two most productive counterparts each season since Albert’s 2001 debut.

By definition, using OPS+ provides only a high-level offensive view, but it does allow Pujols’ yearly numbers to be included. For a 2011 projection, I simply listed the career OPS+ marks of Pujols, Holliday and Berkman.

* partial season
# career averages

Not surprisingly, the MV3 in 2004 earned their reputation with the highest OPS+ total of the Pujols years. The same three also logged the second-best OPS+ total the year prior.

If Pujols, Holliday and Berkman each post career-average seasons for them in 2011, their total OPS+ would rank only in a tie for sixth over the last 11 years.

Then again, it doesn’t seem to matter all that much in the big picture. As the far right column indicates, having three players with high OPS+ marks does not correlate well with the entire 25-man roster reaching the post-season. Three of the top five seasons by this measure were non-playoff ones, 2003, 2008 and 2010.

Further suggesting a lineup with depth (and good pitching) may be more important than having three offensive stars is the fact that the Cardinals reached the playoffs in four of the lowest five OPS+ total years. The 2005 reader voting favorite ranks ninth in this measurement despite the club having won 100 games and the 2006 World Champions are eighth of 11.

Earlier I made the assumption that Holliday and Berkman will be the among the Cardinals’ top three contributors in 2011, joining Pujols. What do you think?

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

With the addition of free agent Lance Berkman, the St. Louis Cardinals will have a formidable middle of the order. Manager Tony La Russa has the former Houston star penciled into the fifth spot in his 2011 lineup behind incumbent all-stars Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday.

Memories return to the 2004 season, a time when the club had three offensive heroes, a trio that performed so well that they may have canceled each other out in the National League Most Valuable Player voting – yet still finished 3-4-5. Pujols, then 24 years of age, was joined by Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds.

It was the last time a noteworthy label stuck to the offense, as the three were called the “MV3.”

Could the new group justify the return of the moniker or perhaps earn a new tag of their own? Of course that remains to be seen on the field in 2011, but based on career numbers, the idea is not crazy.

A long-time member of Houston’s “Killer B’s,” Berkman will be one year older next season than Edmonds was in 2004, 34. That season, Rolen was 29, two years younger than Holliday will be in 2011. Obviously, the constant is Pujols, with six more stellar years of performance logged since 2004, including three MVPs of his own.

Putting Albert aside, let’s look at how the two pairs stack up using career accomplishments through 2004 and 2010 as a comparison. The Triple Crown categories of batting average, home runs and RBI along with Gold Gloves as a defensive indicator follow. The first three measures especially are often cited in MVP-worthiness comparisons.

Batting average. Led by Holliday’s seven years with a .300 or higher average, the 2011 pair has substantially more such seasons than did Pujols’ 2004 cohorts at the time.

Home runs. This is a very close category, with the 2004 duo holding a slight eight seasons to seven edge.

RBI. Berkman’s six 100-plus RBI years puts the 2011 pair barely ahead, ten to nine.

Gold Gloves: This is a blowout. Neither Holliday nor Berkman own a single fielding excellence award, while Rolen and Edmonds already had 13 Gold Gloves between them by 2004.

Of course, the past is just that. It remains to be seen if Berkman can return to his previous level of offensive prowess while dealing with the demands of returning to full-time outfield duty.

For a rebirth of the “MV3” to follow, it would be required as the 2011 Cardinals clearly need this group to hit.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

On Wednesday, the St. Louis Cardinals garnered two 2010 National League Gold Glove Awards. Catcher Yadier Molina took his third straight and first baseman Albert Pujols was voted his second overall.

Regular contributor Tom Orf notes that Cardinals players have received 21 Gold Glove Awards in the most recent decade, ten more than any of the other 29 MLB clubs can tout.

Over the 2001-10 period, the Cardinals are also the only team to have fielded a Gold Glove winner at every position, with multiple awards at every roster spot other than pitcher, where Adam Wainwright won in 2009. He was the first Cardinals pitcher to take the vote since Bob Gibson’s nine-year run from 1965-73.

Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds were each selected four times as Cardinals during the decade. In addition, Rolen received the award representing the Phillies in 2000 and 2001 and with the Cincinnati Reds in 2010. Edmonds was also voted a 2000 NL award and two previously in the American League, in 1997-98.

Between Yadier Molina and Mike Matheny, the Cardinals have owned the NL catching Gold Glove in seven of the last 11 years. (Matheny had also taken home the award in 2000.)

Over the decade, only in 2007 did the Cardinals not field at least one Gold Glove winner.

St. Louis Cardinals, Gold Glove Award winners, 2001-10

On Thursday, the National League Silver Slugger Awards for the top hitters were announced. First baseman Pujols took home his sixth across three different positions while outfielder Matt Holliday earned his fourth, but first as a Cardinal after three with Colorado.

Pujols had initially been selected at third base in his rookie season of 2001, then in the outfield two years later. His fourth win at first base ties Colorado’s Todd Helton for the most Silver Slugger selections at the position over the history of the Award, which was first announced in 1980.

2010 was the fifth time in the decade that the Cardinals had two Silver Sluggers, most recently having been Pujols and outfielder Ryan Ludwick in 2008. Oddly, in 2005, Pujols’ first Most Valuable Player Award season, he missed out on both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger to Chicago’s Derrek Lee.

St. Louis’ Silver Slugger team total over the last ten years is 13. Unlike the full positional representation of Gold Gloves, the Cardinals were shut out of the offensive awards at catcher and second base this decade. The club had no selections in their World Championship 2006 season or in 2007.

St. Louis Cardinals, Silver Slugger Award winners, 2001-10

Pujols is the seventh Cardinal to be awarded both a Gold Glove and Silver Slugger in the same season. The others who accomplished it this decade were Edmonds (2004), Edgar Renteria (2002-03) and Rolen (2002). Former Cardinals greats Ozzie Smith, Willie McGee and Keith Hernandez completed the single-season double during the 1980’s.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Heading into the bottom of the 11^th inning Saturday for the St. Louis Cardinals against Colorado Rockies reliever Franklin Morales, pinch-hitter Pedro Feliz amazingly drew a walk, just his fourth in 125 plate appearances since joining the club. Colby Rasmus also took a free pass to put two on with no out.

Matt Holliday‘s single to right field coupled with an error by outfielder Ryan Spilborghs enabled Feliz to reverse field on the basepaths and barely score ahead of the tag. That enabled the Cardinals to edge the Rockies, 1-0, in the second-to-last contest of the season and extend their too-little, too-late winning streak to four games.

Holliday took a lot of heat early in the season for a low average with runners in scoring position, causing some to label him “non-clutch.” With a larger number of at-bats, that balanced out as the season progressed, now at .273.

In fact, Holliday leads the entire National League with 50 two-out RBI. Further, Holliday is just one behind NL leader Jayson Werth of Philadelphia with 45 doubles this season.

To put his Saturday feat into perspective, since becoming a Cardinal last July 24th, Holliday has 50 percent more last at-bat game-winning hits for the Cardinals than his nearest competitor, Albert Pujols, six to four. Holliday has 23 percent of the club’s most recent 26 such hits.

Last at-bat game-winning hits, St. Louis Cardinals, 07/24/09 to present

Thanks to researcher Tom Orf for the above data.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Since the All-Star Break, St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Matt Holliday has played in 24 games. He is hitting with metronome-like consistency with hits in 22 of them, including his last seven. During that time, the 30-year-old has five home runs and 20 RBI along with a .333/.415/.548 line.

In game two of the Cincinnati series on Tuesday night, Holliday had a double and three singles and plated three. It was his fourth game of four or more hits this season. No Cardinals hitter had as many four-hit contests since Ryan Ludwick and Albert Pujols in 2008.

The following tables outline the 40 different times in the last half-century, since 1960, that a Cardinals player had four or more four-hit games in one season. 24 different hitters are included. The first column lists the occurrences from most recent to oldest.

The middle column is sorted by the most such games in a season. Pujols is tied at the top with seven four-hit games, which he accomplished in 2004. Others who also had seven are Willie McGee in 1985, Curt Flood in 1964 and Dick Groat in 1963.

The far right column indicates the number of seasons each player had at least four, four-hit games. In a bit of a surprise to me at least, Flood, a career .293 hitter, is the leader with five such years, 1961, 1963-65 and 1968.

Not surprisingly, Pujols is among the group right behind Flood at four seasons. In 2010, Albert is lagging. He collected four hits on opening day, but didn’t replicate the feat until June 23. Pujols hasn’t done it again in the almost two months since – but there is still time. 49 games remain in the regular season.

St. Louis Cardinals four-hit games, season, 1960-2010

Thanks to researcher Tom Orf for the data in the above tables.

Follow me on Twitter.
Follow The Cardinal Nation Blog on Facebook.

Seeing a very legitimate chance of going deep into the playoffs and perhaps taking their second World Series in four years, the St. Louis Cardinals took a major risk on July 24 by trading for outfielder Matt Holliday. One month earlier, the club had added Mark DeRosa, who offered the promise of stability at third base and some immediate long ball pop.

In acquiring the two veterans, both impending free agents, the organization paid a high price, giving up in return five players taken in the first two rounds of the 2006 through 2008 drafts. All were considered top organizational prospects, with three having made their MLB debuts, one in Triple-A and the other in Double-A at the time.

They included relievers Chris Perez and Jess Todd, sent to Cleveland for DeRosa plus starting pitcher Clayton Mortensen, outfielder Shane Peterson and the Cardinals’ first-round pick in 2008, third baseman Brett Wallace, who went to Oakland in return for Holliday.

The return was immediate and noticeable.

When the former Cubs fan favorite DeRosa was added on June 27, the Cardinals had lost their first place status and were trending south. Though the third baseman contributed, he hit the disabled list by July 1 due to a wrist injury that required post-season surgery. Despite slamming eight home runs in his first 22 games with the club, DeRosa skidded to a .228 average by season’s end.

By the time the Holliday deal was announced on July 24, the team had a precarious lead of just 1 ½ games. The Cards would go on to win 39 and lose 25 over the remainder of the regular season for a post-Holliday winning percentage of .609. They were the first to clinch and their final divisional cushion was a comfortable 7 ½ games after having reached a high-water mark of 11 1/2 games out front in early September.

Holliday offered what the Cardinals had been lacking and what caused manager Tony La Russa to campaign for his addition for several years, a legitimate clean-up hitter behind Albert Pujols.

Pujols’ rate of intentional walks had been an increasing problem as more and more National League managers decided to avoid giving Pujols a chance to beat them. That changed once Holliday arrived. The rate of Pujols’ intentional walks was more than cut in half once Holliday was batting behind him.

Pujols could not be pitched around as Holliday was on fire, batting .357 with 13 home runs and 57 RBI in just 63 games with St. Louis. Holliday’s total of 12 game-winning RBI was second-highest on the team. Pujols had 19, but it took him all season to accumulate them. At his new home, Busch Stadium, Holliday was even better, batting .385 (50-for-130) with nine home runs and 35 RBI in 34 games.

The success did not continue in the post-season, however. With Los Angeles manager Joe Torre avoiding Pujols, Holliday didn’t make the Dodgers pay. He batted just 2-for-12 (.167) in the three NLDS defeats, and did not immediately atone for his game 2 fielding error that turned a sure win into a loss. In the season-ending game 3 at home, Holliday went 0-for-4 with three left on base.

On the other hand, DeRosa, still dealing with the wrist problem, went 5-for-13 (.385) against the Dodgers, second to Colby Rasmus among the Cardinals starters.

Following the season, St. Louis offered both free agents arbitration, but they declined as expected. The Cardinals never seemed serious about re-signing DeRosa, instead likely using him as part of a fallback plan had they been unable to lure Holliday back.

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, DeRosa signed a two-year contract with San Francisco prior to Holliday’s decision to remain a Cardinal for the next seven or eight years.

The Cardinals receive a compensatory pick in the 2010 draft for DeRosa’s departure, softening a bit of the blow of having yielded Perez and Todd. Yet the aggregate impact of the trades clearly weakened the Cardinals farm system with several years likely required to reload.

The acts of the trades as well as the subsequent financial commitment made to Holliday should have settled the lingering questions of some over Cardinals ownership’s commitment to win.

All in all, in my view, these bold trades and their subplots became the top story across the Cardinal Nation in 2009.

Next up: A look back at how my prediction from 12 months ago of the top five Cardinals stories of 2009 came to pass, followed by my look ahead to the top five Cardinals stories of 2010.

Link to The Cardinal Nation Blog’s top 20 stories of the year countdown

Follow me on Twitter.

Making a quick playoff exit was not what the St. Louis Cardinals had in mind when giving up three top prospects for the final two and a half months of Matt Holliday’s expiring contract. Making matters even worse was the reality that the outfielder’s agent, Scott Boras, was plotting the course, a man with a well-deserved reputation for finding top dollar for his clients via free agency.

The situation would remain front and center on the minds of the Cardinal Nation from July through the end of 2009. In fact, it remained topical right up until January 5, when Holliday came to terms on a new, seven-year, $120 million deal with an eighth-year option to remain with St. Louis.

It was a long and painful journey to get there.

From his very first meeting with the press as a Cardinal, a session I attended on July 24, Holliday was asked, then later asked and re-asked about his future plans. The now-30-year-old made it clear from the start that he was in no hurry to discuss a long-term contract.

As the Cardinals season moved toward its close, it was unclear whether or not Boras and the club had yet spoken regarding the matter. On September 24, Boras laid down the law by telling the media he was looking for a Mark Teixeira-like, eight-year, $180 million deal for the man he labeled a “blue-collar superstar”.

Holliday Cardinals futures took a severe beating in fan markets as a result. Into the off-season, Boras hoped to interest the deepest-pocketed teams in New York, Boston and Los Angeles in the bidding.

By early November, when Holliday officially filed for free agency, the Cardinals had seemingly lost whatever small advantage they previously may have enjoyed. Holliday was rumored to have said he would not be giving the club preferential treatment. Chairman Bill DeWitt Jr. acknowledged his Cardinals would not be the high bidder even as the Angels, Giants and Braves stated they were not interested.

The Cardinals offered Holliday arbitration at the start of December, which was rejected as expected. Boras toughened his stance, pulling the St. Louis future of Albert Pujols into the fray. By mid-month, the Cards made their first reported formal offer, rumored to be five years at about $16 million per year, but apparently received no reply.

As the Jason Bay talks with the Red Sox stumbled, that club expressed interest in Holliday. In fact, it later came out that Boston made him a five-year, $82.5 million offer before giving the same deal to pitcher John Lackey, who accepted. Their AL East competitors from New York never got into the mix, though the Mets at least tried to leverage Holliday in their own Bay negotiations before finally landing their initial target.

As December came to a close, a rumor surfaced that Baltimore offered Holliday eight-years, $130 million guaranteed. A number of other sources, including the Orioles team president, shot down the report. In hindsight, a number of industry-watchers felt the Cardinals gave the outfielder too many years, therefore spending too much in total. Perhaps the Baltimore rumor hastened that.

After a meeting between Cardinals executives and Boras in Austin, Texas the first weekend of January, it took only a few more days to lock down the deal, thus ending one of the most up-and-down free agent sagas the Cardinal Nation has ever had to endure – until Pujols nears free agency, that is…

Link to The Cardinal Nation Blog’s top 20 stories of the year countdown

Follow me on Twitter.

FUD.

Ever hear the term? Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

St. Louis Cardinals fans have lived under a haze of FUD almost from the moment general manager John Mozeliak announced the acquisition of outfielder Matt Holliday on July 24 without having agreement on a contract extension for the then-free agent to be. It required almost six long months to get a deal done, which was finally announced on Tuesday.

Instead of celebrating the huge signing, one which makes the Cardinals the clear National League Central Division frontrunner and top challenger to the League Champion Phillies, many in the mainstream media couldn’t wait even 24 hours to start shoveling more FUD.

Though far from alone, one example is Yahoo’s Jeff Passan, who kicked off our unwanted sentence of another seven years of terrible Holliday-Holiday puns with his article entitled, “Cardinals’ short-lived Holliday celebration”. The side dish is a table with the pun-ishing heading “Card sharks”.

I can summarize the entire article and the reactions of many others with this single-sentence excerpt:

“If Matt Holliday costs $120 million, what on earth does that make Albert Pujols worth?”

Here’s the deal.

Even if Holliday had never been born on January 15, 1980, one day before Pujols, Albert would still be recognized as the best player in the game today. Holliday’s contract did nothing, zero, nada, zilch to increase Pujols’ value. It was already far more than either $120 million or $17 million annually.

FUD alert!

While Holliday scored a nice contract, do you have any idea how many other Major League Players currently make more than his $17 million per year? How many others have a deal greater than $120 million in total?

Give up? The answer is 14 and 11, respectively.

Might some of their deals be a better gauge of the top end of baseball’s pay scale than Holliday’s?

I know. That would blow the whole theme of part two of the FUD story – where the poor bumbling Cardinals awaken one day from their deep slumber only to see “Pujols standing next to Hal Steinbrenner or John Henry or Arte Moreno, flashing his teeth and holding up a new jersey,” as Passan suggests.

The author may be a former understudy of a player agent, as he spins a yarn suggesting Pujols’ new salary might somehow be tied to the on-paper increase of the value of his franchise or club revenue growth.

Let’s get real. The Cardinals wouldn’t have anted up for Holliday if they didn’t believe they could sign Pujols. The former is a very good player, but the latter is the face of the franchise. This ownership group knows what they are doing.

So, what might it take?

Realistically, putting aside Alex Rodriguez’ re-negotiation of his Texas Rangers contract which pays him $27.5 million per year, his Yankees teammate Mark Teixeira and Dodger Manny Ramirez are the highest-paid position players in terms of annual salary at $22.5 million each.

Given the downturn in the economy, should it take more than $25-$28 million per? That would be between $8 and $11 million per year more than Holliday. If Pujols wants seven or eight years like Holliday, give it to him. $175-$224 million is a wide enough bandwidth to work within. Even at $175M, only A-Rod ($275M), Derek Jeter ($189M) and Teixeira ($180M) have bigger deals.

In my opinion, the time for the Cardinals to push ahead with a substantive offer to Pujols is now. In the Thursday Post-Dispatch, Mozeliak was asked about this, but offered a reply that was far too passive for my tastes.

“If he (Pujols) and his representatives want to engage, we’re ready,” Mozeliak said.

Some are concerned with the idea that Pujols might feel disrespected by Holliday making more than him over the next two seasons, the remaining term on his current seven-year, $100 million contract. A way to quickly address that potential concern is to approach Pujols now about re-negotiating the next two years as part of his extension. Even if he turns the initiative down, he knows the team put forth the effort.

With the signing of Holliday, the Cardinals have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt their commitment to spend. Being as sensitive as he is, Pujols would not want to be painted as the bad guy by turning away a mega-deal from the club, especially after having made such a point in the past about wanting to see ownership commit to fielding a competitive team around him.

Ownership has done their part. Now it is Pujols’ turn.

Yet, forcing Pujols’ next step is not without risk. If he makes it clear that he wants a record-breaking, unprecedented, beat-A-Rod contract, his greed would be exposed. It might also punch his ticket out of town, an unthinkable idea to many.

While I don’t expect this to happen, if for some reason the Cardinals receive signals that crush their optimism over keeping Pujols, by acting now, they would still have time to consider how best to deal him. Waiting means the potential of receiving only a measly pair of future draft picks in return for the game’s best player if he reaches free agency.

At the end of the 2010 season, Pujols will receive full no-trade protection as he completes his tenth year as a major leaguer, the last five years with the same team. Realistically, that leaves the 2010 trade deadline as the best trade-no-trade target decision date.

By getting the ball rolling now, the Cardinals will put the pressure on Pujols to declare his hand. Even if Pujols really isn’t ready, both sides will have a much better idea where they stand.

Could they wait? Of course, they could. Pujols still has two years remaining on his current contract. Yet given Albert’s consistent success, how would his asking price go down in the future?

(I will pick up the remainder of the story here in an upcoming post.)

Follow me on Twitter.

In reaction to the mass emotion exhibited at the time of the St. Louis Cardinals’ July 24 acquisition of Matt Holliday and $1.5 million from Oakland in return for Brett Wallace, Clayton Mortensen and Shane Peterson, I wrote an article entitled, “Will the Holliday trade be good, bad or neutral?”

In it, I tried valiantly to remove the initial excitement, whether positive or negative, and develop a structured, rational view of how I would consider the trade, both that day and over the long haul. The idea grew out of a long discussion with the Post-Dispatch’s Derrick Goold in the press box of Philadelphia’s Citizens Bank Park that evening.

To that end, I prepared a detailed decision tree with multiple conditions. We now have two of the three answers to my questions:

1. Win the 2009 World Series – no
2. Holliday re-signs below market value – no
3. One or more of the traded players become a star – TBD
   • If yes, my score will be that the trade was bad.
   • If no, my score will be that the trade was neutral.

Let’s take the points in order.

1. The Cardinals did not win the World Series. I doubt anyone would disagree that the driving force behind the trade was to improve the team in 2009. One step was to get the club into the post-season, then once there, improve their chances of going all the way.

For me, it wasn’t good enough to just make the playoffs. Though the Cardinals were in first place at the time of the trade, their lead was tenuous. No doubt Holliday played a key role in the 36-24 (.600) record posted by the club after his arrival. Yet the team went three and out in the NLDS, losing the pivotal second game on a Holliday error.

2. Holliday clearly did not sign below market value. That means the Cardinals conceivably could have pursued him just as doggedly this winter had they not traded for him first. Offering him $120 million was just as possible had he reached the open market as a most recent member of the A’s or wherever else he might have been traded last summer instead of St. Louis. One thing we know about agent Scott Boras is that he takes his players to free agency, no matter what team they are on or how much that club wants the player back.

There would have been an additional cost in losing their first-round 2010 draft pick for signing Holliday in that manner, but the Cardinals would still likely be ahead in the prospect side of the equation because they would still have the three players traded for Holliday.

Though supposedly disavowed by Holliday earlier in the fall, the Cardinals may have achieved some re-signing benefit through the comfort and familiarity Holliday gained as a player with the Cardinals and his family achieved in being a part of the organization. Was that the game-changer? Asking Boras, I can bet his answer would be “no”. In reality, it probably mattered, but not in a measurable manner.

Since we are talking about money, I want to delve into the terms a bit, as I am seeing a lot of mixed reports.

As I believe from multiple sources, there is a $17 million per year salary with $2 million deferred annually without interest. The eighth year at $17 million vests if Holliday places among top ten in NL MVP voting in year seven or there is a year eight buyout for $1 million. Full no-trade protection was provided.

The deal is stated as seven years/$120 million and could grow to eight years/$136 million. I have not seen mention of the deferral timeframe, but the AP said the present value of the deal is about $16 million.

Update: The AP has published the final details:

The Cardinals must decide whether to exercise the 2017 option within five days of the end of the 2016 World Series. As already noted, the option would become guaranteed if Holliday finishes among the top 10 in 2016 NL MVP voting.

Depending on whether the option is exercised, Holliday will receive $1.4 million or $1.6 million each July 15 from 2020 until 2029.

Holliday receives a full no-trade provision, a hotel suite on the road and the same award bonus opportunities that Cardinals teammate Albert Pujols has: $50,000 for election to the NL All-Star team, $25,000 for All-Star selection, $50,000 for division series MVP (an award that doesn’t yet exist), $100,000 for league championship series MVP, $150,000 for World Series MVP, $200,000 for NL MVP and $50,000 each for Gold Glove and Silver Slugger.

Let’s consider the winners and losers.

Boras originally wanted eight years, $180 million. It was alleged he later dropped his expectations to $18 million per year. Since the Red Sox reportedly offered Holliday $16.5 million per year and Jason Bay received that same average annual value (AAV) from the Mets, it provided the lower ceiling. It only seemed logical that the Cardinals could not skate by paying less than $16.5 million per year.

Like in Teixeira’s deal, Boras did not settle for lower annual values in the later years of the contract.  Therefore, Boras’ wins were there and in the term of the contract, as he ended up with seven, perhaps eight years.

The Cardinals seemed to want to hold to five years and around $16 million early on. Once they were willing to go seven or eight years, they were penned in.

Buster Olney from ESPN is one of the many questioning the deal, quoting a rival GM who said this, “They (the Cardinals) look like they spent about $30 million more than they needed to.”

To me, the viewpoint seems off base, as the AAV factor was not separated out from the number of years factor. I believe the former to be reasonable. What the other GM should have said is “The Cardinals look like they went two years too long, compared to other bidders.” That, I could understand, though the hotly-disputed rumor of Baltimore’s mystery bid of eight years, $130 million guaranteed may have been leaked to head off that avenue.

On one hand, paying $17 million for a 36- or 37-year-old outfielder is concerning. On the other, what will the 2017 market be like? What will $17 million in 2017 money buy? Will it be a bad contract then? Only time will tell.

Now to the final question.

3. Will any of the traded players become a star? It is still far too early to know.

Wallace has the best chance, but has been traded again and seems destined for first base, rather than third. His value is down since July 24. Mortensen had a very rough debut for the A’s, but it is still too soon to gauge. After the trade, Peterson continued to post a .730-ish OPS in the Texas League, a good home for hitters. He lacks size along with punch.

In summary:

• Taking everything into account, if one of the three traded players becomes a star, I would consider the July Holliday trade gamble to have been a bad deal for the Cardinals.

• If none of the three traded players come through, I will call the Holliday trade a wash.

Don’t get me wrong. I applauded the Cardinals for their bold move and still do. If the World Series was the objective, which I think it should have been, it was not achieved, however. Ultimately, the effort must be judged by the end result.

Assuming his new no-trade clause is not bought out later, Holliday will remain a Cardinal for the next seven or eight years. I believe that to be a good thing overall, but the trade itself may not have been the best precursor to secure the long-term contract.

Follow me on Twitter.

I opened my mail this morning and checked the Scout.com Cardinals message board to find a number of items asking about the new eight-year offer at $16 million per year supposedly tendered by the Cardinals to Matt Holliday. The source of this information was an MLB.com article posted Tuesday evening.

After dealing with the shock of Cards GM John Mozeliak apparently having lost his cool in bidding against himself after having been so in-control of his dealings with agent Scott Boras for so long, I went to check out the article for myself this morning.

Turns out nothing is said about eight years or any years, for that matter. It says nothing about $128 million. In fact, the short article says nothing new at all, though it does repeat the Tuesday Buster Olney $18 million per year asking price rumor.

I figured I had been given the wrong link, so searched all over MLB.com looking for the smoking gun. There was none.

Broadening my search, I then found several references to the article elsewhere, including this headline from NBC.com, also from last evening, which links back to the same MLB.com post:

UPDATE: Cards reportedly offer Holliday 8-year deal

UPDATE: MLB.com is reporting that the Cardinals have offered Matt Holliday an 8-year contract for about $16 million per season.

The story also speculates that if a mystery team were to enter the Holliday mix it could be the Seattle Mariners.

Wednesday’s apparent re-write of the MLB.com article does not mention Seattle, either.

Here’s my guess at what happened.

Dependable and knowledgeable Cardinals MLB.com beat writer Matthew Leach is out on vacation and “Joe Fill-in Guy” wrote the Holliday article. He cited old information that included a reference to eight years that Joe Strauss mentioned several weeks back. Shortly after, additional information came out that the base proposal may be four or five years with perhaps some options, but nothing more about eight years has been mentioned recently.

Once someone at MLB.com realized the eight years news was older than Thanksgiving’s left-over turkey, it was edited out of the article, as was the writer’s Seattle speculation. By then, this supposed new news was all over cyberspace, as evidenced by the NBC post that summarizes and links to the now-neutered MLB.com article.

Unfortunately, in making their corrections, MLB.com made no reference to the tracks they apparently covered up over night.

What can the reader learn from this? Be careful.

In case you haven’t noticed, it seems like 99 percent of the news being posted is just a rehash of what someone else said, so take the time to check the source. For example, sites like MLB Trade Rumors and Rotoworld do not break news – they just aggregate and re-report what others said. I am not picking on them, as these kinds of sites have a place for those who don’t follow this stuff closely and want a quick fix. My advice is to keep your wits about you, however.

These two sites almost always link back to the original source, which is crucial. I highly recommend you actually click on the original link to be sure something was not lost in translation, because sometimes that is exactly what occurs.

Tuesday’s Felipe Lopez “news” is a great example. Derrick Goold said directly that he had no new information on the players the Cardinals are pursuing now that Mark DeRosa has signed with San Francisco. Goold mentioned Boras client Lopez among a list of names in whom the Cards had reportedly shown previous interest. He also suggested that given how Boras works, it is likely the agent will focus on getting Holliday placed first.

In other words, the Cardinals interest in Lopez was a repeat of old news and was clearly represented that way. Yet others latched onto it and made it headline fodder as if Mozeliak had called Boras about Lopez yesterday morning in his remorse over losing DeRosa.

The Post-Dispatch also updated their report on DeRosa. After having said the player had received an offer from St. Louis earlier in the off-season, they corrected that in later articles as more information that a firm offer was never tendered apparently became available. Certainly, nothing malicious was intended. It just happens as part of the difficult job of reporting on rumors.

The thirst to be first results in mistakes which are quickly amplified in today’s instant news world. Been there, done that. Lessons learned. You should expect it too and act accordingly.

Follow me on Twitter.

As most St. Louis Cardinals fans know, the club remains in a contract stalemate with free agent Matt Holliday and his agent Scott Boras. For weeks, rumors of a five-year offer in the $80 million vicinity have supposedly been on the table.

In terms of years and total value, the Cardinals’ proposal is less than the seven-year, $107.5 million bid made in spring 2008 by Holliday’s club two back, the Colorado Rockies, though the annual value of St. Louis’ rumored offer is slightly higher. Boras seems unwilling or at least unready to admit the market has not grown to meet his inflated expectations, keeping many more across baseball than just his client and the Cardinals in a holding pattern.

Even with Tuesday’s news of Jason Bay going to the Mets for a reported four years, $66 million and a vesting option for a fifth season, closing off one more potential avenue for Holliday, there is no assurance that Boras will alter his negotiating stance any time soon. Among his other free agents still looking for work are Johnny Damon, Xavier Nady, Felipe Lopez and Adrian Beltre.

That doesn’t mean The Cardinal Nation isn’t working on alternatives. Recent discussions here and elsewhere have suggested the idea of the Cardinals modifying their bid to a higher annual value in return for fewer years. For example, a two-year deal for $34 million up to as much as $38 million, or from $17 million to $19 million per year.

If I was Boras presented with that structure, I would push for at least the same annual value over a longer period, four or probably five years minimum. A major risk for the Cardinals is that if Boras is ever ready to entertain a shorter-term contract, it could re-interest other clubs in Holliday’s services.

Later on, if Boras wanted to try to align with the Cardinals while also positioning Holliday to take advantage of a better future market, he might consider teeing up an escape clause after two years. That would not necessarily be an immediate card to play and assumes he could first get an annual value to his liking.

Putting on Cards general manager John Mozeliak’s hat instead, I might counter by asking for a comparable club out after two seasons. In essence, that would just shorten the deal to two years.

After all, two years down the road, it is likely that one side or the other would perceive benefit in ending the contract early. If the player and the market continue to improve, Boras will be a winner, just as he was with J.D. Drew and the Dodgers. If Holliday doesn’t deliver, then the Cardinals might be inclined to cut their losses and exit the deal.

Two years may make sense for a number of external reasons as well. Following the 2011 season, the leadership of the St. Louis Cardinals could be very different than today.

Tony La Russa is just starting his first-ever one-year contract with the team and if he doesn’t retire after the 2010 campaign, his own comments suggest the odds of staying will drop substantially in each passing year. In other words, his end as manager is approaching.

2011 will be Chris Carpenter’s last guaranteed season under his current contract. A perennial injury risk, the ace of the staff will turn 37 years of age during the first month of the 2012 season, an option year for the team.

Last and far from least, the franchise, Albert Pujols, is not under contract after 2011. Trying to figure out how to satisfy Albert in terms of dollars while affording the optimal combination of complimentary players around him remains the single largest challenge for the franchise.

One can debate whether signing Holliday to any deal, long-term or short, helps or hurts the Pujols situation. In a two-year scenario, an immediate concern over Holliday making more than Albert in 2010 and 2011 would arise, a potential problem that could be avoided in a longer-term deal by backend-loading Holliday’s contract.

In a two-year Holliday plan, this would have to be addressed by making Pujols a specific offer now. Even if he is not ready to entertain it, the club would demonstrate their proper respect to Pujols as the team leader.

Given all the above, if the money and terms are right, the parties involved in the Holliday situation just might find a way to settle on two years as a workable compromise, but even if so, will it be with St. Louis?

Follow me on Twitter.

In Saturday’s post, I included a Jack Clark quote noting the pressure he received way back in 1987 from the union, the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), to take the largest contract offered him. It required a very uncomfortable move from the environment he and his family favored, St. Louis and the Cardinals, to New York and the Yankees. It was a decision Clark still regrets to this day.

This important factor in free agent negotiations and deliberations never seems to draw the publicity that the high-profile agents in chase of the best camera angles, biggest headlines and highest dollars receive.

Of course, that has to be the way the union wants it. Just as the owners have their collusion, uh collaboration, so do the players. I call your collusion and raise you one.

The most eye-opening piece I have ever read about the subject was written by former National League pitcher Mark Knudson and ran in the Ft. Collins Coloradoan on July 20, 2008. Knudson had spent parts of eight seasons in the majors with Houston, Milwaukee and Colorado, where he ended his career in 1993.

Unfortunately, the article has since been taken down*, but following are some of my summary points from Knudson, repeated from a July 23, 2008 subscriber-only article I wrote about Rick Ankiel at Scout.com.

* This post is being pre-empted by an Andy Rooney moment. Why do so many papers take down relatively-recent articles? Good luck trying to find a Post-Dispatch article from 2008, for example. I know money is tight for the mainstreamers, but someone needs to inform them that archival disk storage is really inexpensive these days.

…Knudson probes a little-understood angle – that of slotting and pressure by the Major League Baseball Players Association.

Fans are most familiar with the term “slotting” as it relates to the First-Year Player (amateur) Draft. In that case, MLB sets “suggested” bounds for the clubs to follow in awarding player bonuses…

In the case of free agents, the MLBPA plays a comparable enforcer role to stamp out hometown discounts and ensure that the big money players get their fair share compared to others. It is the old analogy that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Thereby, the Players Association help all their constituents earn more money, if not today, then down the road. Interestingly, the former MLB pitcher Knudson characterizes Boras as merely the “front man” behind the powerful Players Association.

Over the years, I have been as critical as anyone about the negotiating tactics of free agent Matt Holliday’s agent, Scott Boras, and will surely continue to be. Yet, if Knudson was anywhere close to the truth, and I have no reason to question him, the aggregate anger of Cardinal Nation aimed at Boras should at least be shared with new MLBPA executive director Michael Weiner (pictured) and his associates. Instead, the union leaders remain behind the curtain likely pushing their share of the buttons.

I can envision Holliday and his sequestered family huddled up in a bomb shelter somewhere waiting to be told by all those making decisions for them when sirens have sounded the all-clear, indicating it is safe to re-emerge from the nuclear winter.

And here we thought the game was so simple. Just see the ball and hit it.

Follow me on Twitter.

Tuesday: The New York Post’s George King reports free-agent outfielder Damon is ready to look elsewhere than the Yankees for work. “I am going to start looking around. Teams are getting better and there are teams interested,” Damon said. “I can’t wait forever and I am sure [the Yankees] are trying to figure things out. I have to be ready.” It is believed the Yankees aren’t interested in giving Damon more than two years for about $20 million.

Wednesday: ESPN.com reports Damon wants $13 million a season from the Yankees. There has been no movement in talks between both parties. Damon has indicated that he does not want the Yankees to make an offer if they are going to propose less.

Friday: Ken Rosenthal of FOXSports.com, reports Damon lowered his price for the Yankees earlier this week, first to two years, $26 million, and then to two years, $20 million. However, by the time Damon dropped his price the second time, the team had already agreed to terms with designated hitter Nick Johnson. The Yankees offered two years and $14 million somewhere in the process, but the two sides failed two reach an agreement.

Friday: The New York Post caught up with Damon for his reaction upon the Yankees signing Johnson instead of him. Damon had been looking for a three-year deal in the $39 million range, and even though sources say that agent Scott Boras caved on the third year, the Yankees weren’t willing to give Damon the same $13 million salary he earned in each of the last four years.

Damon did not hide his disappointment that the Yankees decided to move on without him, though he did not mention his agent.

“I wanted it to happen. I have nothing but great things to say about the Yankees,” Damon said. “If the Nick Johnson thing works out, it will be good for them. It’s part of baseball.

“I’m not quite sure what I’m going to do. I know there are some teams interested, but the Yankees are the best organization I’ve been a part of so far in my career. I wish them all the best.”

It reminded me of another Yankees-related situation from past years, with a player heading in instead of out, but otherwise similar feelings.

In the 2005 Rob Rains book “Cardinals: Where Have You Gone?”, former St. Louis first baseman Jack Clark looked back at his departure from St. Louis. It was a time, 1987, when the owners were guilty of collusion. In fact, as 1987 became 1988, Clark had not received a single offer other than a cut from St. Louis despite coming off a very strong season.

“There were a lot of things that were said to me, and the way they were said, that bothered me,” Clark said. “I was getting a lot of pressure from the (players) union. (Agent) Tom (Reich) came to me and said, ‘What about the Yankees?’…”

He agreed to terms with the Bombers on January 6, 1988. The Ripper is still ripped today about how the events played out.

“Looking back on it, I should have stayed a Cardinal,” Clark said. “I was very happy here. I had my best years in baseball here. We went to the World Series twice in three years. It was fun to go to the ballpark every day. I was playing for the best manager in the game. My family liked it here. My kids were in school. I considered this my home.”

Here is hoping another Boras client, Matt Holliday is aware of the details of the Damon situation and that while a Cardinal, he had the chance to meet Clark, now a broadcaster with FOX Sports Midwest, and hear his story about leaving St. Louis first-hand.

Otherwise, perhaps Holliday will be featured in the 2029 version of “Cardinals: Where Have You Gone?”

Follow me on Twitter.

One of this week’s prevailing storylines regarding free agent Matt Holliday is the supposed “mystery bidder” who will swoop in and whisk the outfielder away from the patiently-waiting St. Louis Cardinals to his new home for the next five to eight years.

While teams like the Mets and Orioles have been linked to the 29-year-old, neither of their offers, if even made, seem to be in the range of the Cardinals’ bid to retain him.

The fear is that the mystery team is none other than the club with the deepest pockets of all – New York Yankees. This is the feeling despite the fact that not only have the Bombers expressed a lack of interest in Holliday, word from their camp is that they will not be engaging. As recently as two days ago, ESPN reported the Yankees “cannot see a situation in which they will become involved” with Holliday.

Few in the Cardinal Nation apparently believe the reports, their fear fueled by general, but deep-seated distrust of the Yankees and a revisionist view of the events of one year ago. At that time, first baseman Mark Teixeira, late of the Angels, was being hotly pursued by his old club as well as the Red Sox, Nationals and Orioles.

As the yarn goes, the Yankees feigned disinterest virtually until the day Teixeira’s signing with New York was announced… and so it will occur again with Holliday.

I didn’t remember the chain of events occurring in that manner, so went back to news reports from last winter. While it is true that at least one point, it seemed Teixiera was very close to joining the Red Sox, and there were zigs, zags and apparently incorrect rumors along the way, the basic fact is that the Yankees’ interest in the first baseman had been long-reported.

Here is a partial timeline summarizing press accounts of the Yankees’ courting of Tex. Again, it is far from the full set of rumors regarding the player. It is the only the subset I could locate that mentions New York specifically.

Note how the level of activity and the timeline differ from 2009.

• December 7, 2008: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports Yankees general manager Brian Cashman met with Teixeira and his agent Scott Boras at Baseball’s Winter Meetings on December 5.

• December 10: Bryan Hoch of MLB.com reports the Yankees’ interest in Teixeira has waned after their signing of C.C. Sabathia.

• December 11: SI.com’s Jon Heyman reports the Yankees have entered the sweepstakes for Teixeira.

• December 15: The New York Post reports that Manny Ramirez would be a fallback option for the Yankees if they do not sign Teixeira.

• December 15: Lyle Spencer of MLB.com reports the Yankees have turned their attention to Teixeira and are interested in signing him.

• December 17: Spencer reports the Yankees have not made an offer or a proposal to Teixeira.

• December 18: George King III of the Post reports that the Yankees were not the team to outbid the Red Sox for Teixeira. “Not us,” was the response from Cashman when contacted by the paper.

• December 22: Kevin Kernan of the Post reports the Yankees have had serious discussions with Boras but have yet to make a contract offer.

• December 22: Buster Olney and Peter Gammons of ESPN.com report the Yankees made an initial offer to Teixeira but then withdrew their bid because it was not close to other teams’ offers.

• December 23: Teixeira’s agreement in principle with the Yankees is announced.

Does the above timeline preclude New York from going after Holliday? Of course not, but it does illustrate that they are being far more stealthy in 2009 if they want Holliday than they were in 2008 with Teixeira.

With Tex, Cashman met with both the player and agent at the Winter Meetings and while the club focused on signing Sabathia first, their interest was reported regularly during the 18 days between the face-to-face meeting and the announcement.

Bottom line, while it was a surprise when the Yankees wrested Teixeira away from the Red Sox, their genuine interest in the player should not have been news to anyone who was paying attention. At least as of yet, the reports about the Yankees and Holliday in 2009 have been just the opposite.

Footnote: Boras may have a very good reason to step lightly with New York regarding Holliday. Incumbent left fielder Johnny Damon, also a Boras client, is reportedly demanding $13 million per season to return to the Yankees while the club is unwilling to go above $10 million. Number of years may also be an issue.

Like Holliday with the Cardinals, at this point, Damon seems to have only one team openly interested in his services. So even if Boras can somehow manage to hook the Yankees with Holliday, he creates another problem in the process, having to start over finding a new home for Damon. It may not be an easy task to interest another taker in the past-his-prime 36-year-old at a price anywhere near the amounts being discussed.

Follow me on Twitter.

Those who read this blog regularly may think I am making a major flip-flop here.

After having been a consistent critic of Boston general manager Theo Epstein for his long history of paying off bad contracts (see photo for one example), why would I now be encouraging his St. Louis Cardinals counterpart John Mozeliak to model his behavior after the Red Sox leader?

Here’s why.

Both GMs were in a similar situation this off-season, having acquired high-profile but impending free agent outfielders via trade. The Sox picked up Jason Bay in the summer of 2008 while the Cardinals added Matt Holliday this July.

Each club wanted their player back for 2010 and beyond, but their approaches have differed.

Epstein made what appears to be a fair, early offer to Bay, which was turned down. He reportedly came back with a second proposal, but when it seemed clear it would not be accepted, Boston moved on.

The Sox have since signed a lesser replacement outfielder in Mike Cameron, but also added free agent pitcher John Lackey, are trying to dump another bad contract in Mike Lowell and are rumored to be after first baseman Adrian Gonzalez in trade.

Mozeliak waited to make his initial offer to agent Scott Boras for Holliday. He then reportedly “tweaked” his bid.

Unlike Epstein, Mo has been unclear on his strategy following his second offer. Beyond the one-year deal with Brad Penny, the Cardinals have not moved to fill other needs, given the need to settle the Holliday situation first. But how long can St. Louis wait?

Comments directly attributed to Mozeliak in recent days are contradictory. One report had him setting a hard deadline with Boras mid-week this week while others indicate he is shying away from drawing a line in the sand.

Boras may not have any other clubs deeply interested in his client and as such, given his way, he would string the Cardinals along as long as it takes to unearth a second, higher bidder – but only if they let him.

There are differing rumors as to the depth of the Mets’ interest in Holliday. Sports Illustrated reports New York may be speaking with Boras on Wednesday, but it could be only a ploy to try to get Bay committed. ESPN’s Buster Olney has the Mets taking a more passive stance, noting they are “monitoring the Holliday negotiations, but are not actively involved”, and suggesting Holliday is out of the price range of the New Yorkers.

If the Cardinals have made a pair of fair bids and Boras won’t accept, it may very soon be time to move on, as Epstein did rather than continue to indefinitely chase after Bay.

But there is the issue of exactly what the Cardinals bid is. Is it fair? Is it aggressive? Is it five years or eight years?

On Tuesday, Olney wrote this about the Cardinals plans: “the intention is to stand on a five-year offer”. At the end of his article, Olney acknowledges the bid reported by Joe Strauss of the Post-Dispatch “worth about $16 million for as much as eight years” without even attempting to rationalize the two seemingly-conflicting rumors.

Some possibilities for the mismatch:

• The rumors were captured at different times. What was the Cardinals’ offer “pre-tweaking”?

• The rumors could have been sourced from different camps. If one had to guess, one might expect that the P-D may be getting their information from St. Louis while ESPN may be closer to Boras’ lips.

• The two may have a different interpretation of how variations like escape clauses, options and buyouts are reflected.

Not all contracts are the same, even when supposedly for the same duration. Here are some examples from what could be an almost infinite number of possibilities:

• An eight-year contract with a player escape clause after five years is an eight-year contract, but obviously one with a huge hole in it.

• A five-year contract with three subsequent option years is generally not considered an eight-year contract until the options are picked up or vested through incentives like appearances, innings pitched or at-bats.

• An eight-year contract with only five years guaranteed is not an eight-year contract. It is nothing more than misleading wording for a five-year contract with three option years.

• An eight-year contract with five years guaranteed, three option years and a buyout for the final three years is still just a five-year contract. Its minimum, quoted value is higher – the total of years one through five, plus the buyout amount.

For example, Albert Pujols signed a seven-year, $100 million contract in 2003. Year eight, covering 2011, is an option at $16 million or the Cardinals can decline, paying Albert a $5 million buyout. The $5 million was added to the $95 million in salary for years one through seven to reach the $100 million minimum commitment. Once the year eight option is formally picked up by the Cardinals, the deal will become eight years, $111 million.

Another example is Adam Wainwright’s contract, signed prior to the 2008 season. It covers four years for a total of $15 million. That is the quoted amount. In addition there are club options for years five and six that will total either $21 million or $22 million. The higher amount is based on winning the Cy Young Award in either of the next two seasons. Just one top five placement in the vote in either upcoming season guarantees the final two option years for Wainwright. That would upgrade his deal to six years, $36 million or $37 million.

Whether any of these possibilities are among what is being discussed between Boras and Mozeliak remains to be seen. But whatever Mo does, it is just about time to channel his inner Theo. Here is hoping he is up to it.

Each struggled during the first half of the 2009 season, but a second change of scenery helped Holliday substantially while Atkins’ surprising funk continued from April until October. As a result, the latter became one of the most prominent names non-tendered on Saturday. The reason was clear – the third baseman’s 2009 on-field performance was out of line with his compensation.

After having averaged 22 home runs and 105 RBI over the previous four seasons, Atkins hit rock bottom in 2009. Atkins could do nothing with the bat and eventually lost his job to the younger and cheaper Ian Stewart.

With Atkins being arbitration eligible and coming off a $7.05 million salary in 2009, the Rockies apparently didn’t want to take a chance on having to pay for a longer-term view in arbitration so they cut the right-handed hitter loose.

With Atkins now on the open market and the Cardinals apparently at least somewhat interested in a third baseman, I thought it might be enlightening to look at the two, accused by some as having been products of the mile-high atmosphere in Denver.

There is no doubt which of the two is the better player, by any comparison. Yet depending on the environment, the gap narrows.

Observation: Holliday seems more of a Coors product than Atkins when comparing individual home and road performance. The former’s career road OPS was just over 75 percent of his Coors OPS, while the third baseman’s away OPS was over 82 percent of his Coors mark.

Note: For the Holliday data above, some explanation is appropriate. The “Away” data includes his results in all road ballparks over his career.  The “w/StL” numbers include his entire stats while with the Cardinals, both home and away, and are included for reference only.

Observation: The gap between Atkins and Holliday was smaller away from Denver. Atkins’ career road OPS compared to Holliday is substantially closer (91 percent of Holliday’s) than it was at Coors (83.7 percent).

To temper the enthusiasm a bit…

Observation: As much as Holliday struggled in Oakland prior to his July 24 trade to St. Louis, Atkins’ season-long problems in Colorado were comparatively more severe. Atkins’ 2009 OPS was 78.2 percent of Holliday’s Oakland outcome.

The bottom line question regarding Atkins’ future value is whether 2009 was an anomaly or his first four seasons as a Major Leaguer were instead the outlier. Some club will pay to find out. Will it be St. Louis?

In multiple reports, St. Louis Cardinals officials have expressed no interest whatsoever in signing free agent outfielder Jason Bay, late of the Boston Red Sox. Yet the 31-year-old may hold the key to the route taken in building, and perhaps the ultimate success of, the 2010 Cardinals roster. It isn’t a stretch to consider its impact to the future of Albert Pujols in the organization.

How can that be?

I see Bay as the trigger for the slow-moving outfield market. The big-spending Red Sox seem to want their free agent back, having made him an early off-season offer of four years, $60 million. The Canadian native turned it down.

Apparently Boston hasn’t made another strike since and seems in no hurry to do so. Bay’s home-area club, the Seattle Mariners, are rumored to be interested as are the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The New York Mets reportedly made a four-year, $65 million offer during the just-completed winter meetings.

That is all noise on the line. If the Red Sox ultimately want to be the high bidder for Bay, they can and will. Yet their slow pace in ramping up and wrapping up negotiations leaves the most important free agent outfielder in play, Matt Holliday. Though Holliday is considered the superior player by most, he appears to be the Sox’ fallback plan if they can’t get a Bay deal done.

Until/unless that occurs, agent Scott Boras seems unable to unearth any public bidders to leverage up the Cardinals’ price for Holliday. The agent continues to expect Mark Teixeira-money for Holliday, eight years, $180 million. To date, there seems no market interest in making that kind of commitment.

The Sox are really in the driver’s seat. They can outwait Bay and even if they lose him, they can just dig a bit deeper in their pockets and snare Holliday. Unless Boras can flush additional potential buyers for his client out of the bushes, he may have to wait for Boston, as well.

The Cardinals are the ones who will probably have to blink first in this four-way stare down. If they wait too long, they will miss other opportunities to retool their club for 2010. The Cards are clearly aware of this, but the optimal time to apply a hard and fast deadline to Boras was unclear – until Friday morning, at least.

The way I see it, it isn’t Boras and Holliday who will determine whether the latter remains a Cardinal as much as it is Bay and even more so, the Red Sox. It is not a good place to be for the St. Louis brain trust. Yet there has been some movement in the one aspect of this situation they can control.

On the Bernie Miklasz radio show Friday morning, Cardinals general manager John Mozeliak confirmed he has made a formal offer to Boras for Holliday’s services and expects a response within 48 hours (that would appear to be Sunday). Details were not disclosed.

Here is hoping Mozeliak draws a firm line in the sand very soon with Boras and either lands Holliday or moves on. Mo suggested to Miklasz that mid-week next week as a probable timeframe when he may do just that.

Unless the offer is Teixeira-type money, which we know it isn’t, Boras will likely reject the Cardinals’ proposal, gambling that Boston or one of the other Bay suitors will eventually ante up more for Holliday.

Though it may be painful at first to say goodbye, the Cardinals can live without Holliday. Let the new killer B’s – Bay, Boston and Boras – play their games for the rest of the winter if need be.

It’s that season once again – the rhetoric season – the annual pre-second-guessing of St. Louis Cardinals ownership and management. It occurs every year at this time, no matter how the previous campaign ended on the field, what the outlook for the next might be or what has transpired during the off-season to date.

Granted, this is an uneasy time for writers on deadlines, needing something spicy about which to opine during a traditional period of low activity across Major League Baseball. (For a great graphical representation of recent years’ trades and free agent signings by winter day, see this post on the Fungoes blog.)

People starving for news seem to hang on every word spoken by club officials and agents alike, as if it is the accurate and only word. They don’t seem to understand or accept that these figures are professionals that know how to leverage the media to further their own interests and negotiating stance.

The hungry public gobble up the spin as translated by the writers as if it is a gourmet meal instead of the table scraps they usually are.

Other times rumors magically leak out, unattributed to any reputable source, yet the breathless rumor-chasing world can turn on its ear as a result.

Let’s take an example.

Some are currently worked up because the Cardinals have supposedly misled their fans regarding their chances of re-signing Matt Holliday, setting expectations unrealistically high. The storyline continues that the club is now trying to let the public down easily that they may be unable to keep the free agent outfielder. That is being passed off as news.

Apparently, the Cardinals should never have said they would do their best to re-sign the outfielder because some fans cannot sort through the clutter to logically think this through for themselves.

Others more romantically inclined, previously became convinced that Holliday would fall in love with St. Louis and sign for a below-top dollar amount just for the privilege to remain with the Cardinals. Their starry-eyed logic was based on several other players having done that in the past under entirely different circumstances.

How naïve is all that?

Anyone with any knowledge of the free agent market and the consistent tactics of agent Scott Boras over the years could easily forecast how the Holliday situation would evolve from the very day in July the Cardinals traded for him. In fact, many of us did just that.

After acquiring Holliday and seeing him in action, the Cardinals expressed interest in bringing him back, but openly acknowledged some time ago that they do not want to allocate the resources to be the highest bidder if it gets to that point. That seems pretty clear.

The Cardinals have not yet made Holliday an offer likely in part because they knew no matter how good it would be, Boras would turn around and use it to try to secure even more cash from another deeper-pocketed organization. This is not surprising.

If Boras can locate another suitor with more money, he will surely take Holliday there for 2010 and beyond. No matter what Bill DeWitt, John Mozeliak, Boras or any writer says, that is most likely what will happen. Again, this is not a news flash.

Other rabble-rousers suggest the Cardinals brass only recently realized it will cost them a substantial percentage of their player payroll to re-sign Albert Pujols as well as Holliday – perhaps more than the club believes they can afford. It seems a change of tune from these inciteful (not insightful) pundits who previously applauded the organization’s efforts in acquiring Holliday in the first place.

Despite the charges to the contrary, those running the team are not stupid nor are a majority of readers for that matter. Yet the extremists – the torches and pitchforks crowd – seem to enjoy getting worked into a frenzy – even before anything actually happens.

If the Cardinals play their hand well, serious competition does not surface and a significant amount of luck is on their side, there is still a chance Holliday could return. Timing is crucial though the club is certainly not in control of all variables.

Having the best of intentions could still lead the Cardinals to undesirable results. That is a very realistic possibility that has been known for months.

Maybe it won’t be anyone’s fault, but that won’t stop those on the sidelines from identifying a black-hatted target to take the blame. It could be the stereotypical cheap owner, the overly-optimistic GM, the money-grubbing agent or the passive player. Not knowing the true facts to be able to properly assign the blame won’t stop it from occurring, including a healthy dose of the usual name-calling.

In the meantime, all the inflammatory headlines and “he said, she said” stuff being written between now and when Holliday’s decision is disclosed is just noise on the line. Some eagerly soak that up. I guess it is good to fill in the time with the talk radio crowd when the obligatory Tiger Woods jokes are exhausted, but to me it is maddening.

Taking it one step further, can you imagine what it will be like with potentially two more years, over 700 days, of Pujols speculation ahead of us to deal with each and every morning, afternoon and evening?

Bottom line, if you feel misled or confused by any part of the Holliday situation, then you just aren’t paying enough attention.

Keeping good men down

The Detroit News has a nice article on the Tigers’ version of Ron “Pop” Warner, rising managerial candidate Tom Brookens. Detroit manager Jim Leyland is given props for hiring up-and-comer Brookens, the former Detroit third baseman, to his 2010 coaching staff. Brookens had moved up the Tigers’ minor league managerial food chain, one level at a time.

The article delves into the rarely-discussed fear many managers apparently have in employing their potential replacement. Leyland was offered as an example of having been blocked this way, as the rising star in the Tigers’ system was passed over for openings by then-manager Sparky Anderson in the late 1970′s and early 1980’s.

In contrast, Tony La Russa, who did give Leyland his first MLB coaching job in his Chicago days in 1982, was called “confident and secure” for initially hiring Leyland.

I find that characterization most interesting given that in the last 20 years, La Russa has groomed a total of zero MLB managers. Current third base coach Jose Oquendo has a chance to make the big step, but seems to be getting fewer external interviews for openings this winter compared to last.

La Russa’s staff continuity means deserving candidates on the way up like Warner either have to wait or consider leaving the organization. The last promotion of a minor league coach/instructor/coordinator to St. Louis was Joe Pettini in 2002. Mark McGwire’s recent hire as major league hitting coach was obviously a very unique situation.

I looked into the details of La Russa’s coaches back in May in a two-part series: “La Russa’s coaching legacy”.

Ozzie wants to manage/coach

A logical follow up is to check in on the anti-La Russa protégé, Ozzie Smith. Having managed in this past summer’s Futures Game put The Wizard in control in one Busch Stadium dugout, for three hours at least.

In Springfield, Illinois for an autograph signing session on Saturday, Smith told the State Journal-Register this:

“I will (manage or coach) at some point in time when the time is right,” said Smith, who is 54. “It’s a natural transition to move from the field. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way for me. I look forward to the day when I can.”

It is unclear at what level Ozzie wants to manage. One might assume it is at the major league level. Attempting to do so without minor league grooming would seem to be a big step for anyone, even a Hall of Famer. Have to wonder how he would get along with his players after carrying his La Russa grudge for 13 years running.

Coaching would seem more reasonable. As a point of comparison, Oquendo has only one season of minor league instructing and another one managing, but has since added 11 seasons on the major league staff.

Mr. Rogers loves Boras

A Sunday column from the Chicago Tribune’s Phil Rogers is always good for getting my blood moving. His current lovefest is for Scott Boras, apparently because the agent recruits the best players and sells them to the highest bidder. Now, that is quite the angle.

Rogers rubs the Yankees’ World Series win in the Red Sox’ collective noses by pointing out the Bostonians passed on last year’s Matt Holliday – then-free agent first baseman Mark Teixeira. He paints Cards GM John Mozeliak as this year’s Boras stooge.

What fools those Red Sox were in offering a mere $170 million when the Yanks bid $180! Now, I am not a big fan of Boston’s big-spending ways either, but after having been burned by Boras more than once, at least they appear to be learning.

Here’s hoping Mo has as much backbone as the Sox did in drawing a line and sticking to it.

Pirates replace Reds in Florida State League

The Pittsburgh Pirates have received approval to purchase the Cincinnati Reds’ A-Advanced Florida State League team, which was in Sarasota, Florida, and move it to their spring home in Bradenton.

The Reds needed to make a change in the FSL after relocating their spring camp to Goodyear, Arizona starting in 2010. Their former facility in Sarasota has been taken over by the Orioles, whose A-Advanced club is the Frederick Keys of the Carolina League.

To complete the deal with Pittsburgh, Cincinnati has moved their Single-A affiliate to the Pirates’ former home in Lynchburg, Virginia. The Pirates had been affiliated with the Lynchburg Hillcats of the Carolina League for the last 15 years.

The Palm Beach Cardinals compete in the FSL, where they have been since 1966 with the exception of six years in the Carolina League. They fielded clubs in Prince William in 1997 and 1998 and in Potomac from 1999 through 2002. Details on the Cardinals FSL/CL league history can be found here.

The hope of some is that McGwire being hired as the Cardinals 2010 hitting coach might provide encouragement to Holliday to take a hometown discount to return to St. Louis next season and beyond.

Yahoo Sports’ Jeff Passan credits Big Mac as having been a factor in Holliday’s rise as a slugger in his days with the Colorado Rockies.

“McGwire originally suggested Holliday employ the leg kick that turned him from a gap hitter into a powerful slugger,” Passan recalls.

In fact, there were reports that in the Clint Hurdle days, the Rockies offered their major league hitting coach job to McGwire, who declined.

Yet would Holliday be as excited to have McGwire as his coach today as he was one year ago?

After their intensive winter workouts, Holliday joined the Oakland A’s, who acquired one year of his services in an off-season trade with the Rockies.

In his first spring training with the A’s, Holliday turned into a singles hitter, having just two doubles and no home runs in his 62 March at-bats.

Once the regular season opened, the problems continued. As April came to a close, Holliday was batting under .240 and had yet to go deep in the Oakland uniform. Counting spring training, the drought was 136 at-bats and 40 games before Holliday finally homered in his final April plate appearance.

By June 5, Holliday had shown slight improvement, having reached a modest total of eight home runs and a .286 batting average on the season. From that point on, he went right back into the tank. Over the next five weeks, until July 16, Holliday endured a 33-game, 121 at-bat homerless streak, the second-longest regular-season period of futility in his career.

Some were labeling Holliday a Coors Field phenom. Others said he could not handle American League pitching, which if true would surely decrease his value as a free agent, since a number of his potential targets could be deep-pocketed AL East Coast clubs.

Clearly, by the time Holliday was dealt to the Cardinals, many A’s fans were glad to see him go. Between spring and the regular season, Holliday had 11 home runs and 61 RBI in 408 Oakland at-bats and a subpar slugging mark of .436, well over 100 points under his career average.

In mid-July, something changed – an adjustment that carried Holliday through his final week with the A’s and into his initial red-hot period as a Cardinal.

Passan reminds us of media reports that it was getting away from McGwire’s winter hitting tips that enabled Holliday to rediscover his mojo and resurrect his sinking free-agent value.

“He (McGwire) also prodded Holliday this offseason to lessen the kick into a stride, which threw off Holliday’s swing for the season’s first three months.”

Taking that at face value, whatever McGwire gave, he later took away. All told, it has to make one wonder how effective Mac’s instruction really has been for Holliday.

His other reported students include the Duncan brothers, Chris and Shelley, a pair of all-or-nothing hitters trying to get back to the majors, Oakland shortstop Bobby Crosby, who lost his job because of a lack of hitting and can’t get either one back and scrappy Skip Schumaker, who hardly fits the McGwire profile. As Rick Hummel of the Post-Dispatch notes, the .263 career-hitting Mac “had just three sacrifices in his career and none in his last 10 seasons”.

I am not suggesting that Mark McGwire cannot become a good major league hitting coach. I am only noting he is unproven and his limited past track record may not be as stellar as some think.

It was one thing to quote a friend of Matt Holliday’s saying the Cardinals soon-to-be free agent outfielder “loves the idea of going to the Yankees”. That is bad enough on its own, but it hurts even more to read where St. Louis supposedly ranks in his priority queue – somewhere south of both New York teams, the Angels and the Dodgers.

The second-hand comment about his current club is that Holliday supposedly “very much enjoyed playing in St. Louis, though, and appreciates the Cardinals’ keen interest”.

Doesn’t that sound like the prelude of the big break-up or what?

Heyman went on to rank nine contenders for Holliday’s services. The best the Cardinals could place is a weak sixth. The truth hurts.

With Scott Boras’ recent rhetoric placing Holliday in Mark Teixeira’s $180-million neighborhood as one of a pair of “blue-collar superstars”, even finishing sixth may be optimistic.

It was a nice try in 2009 for the Cardinals, but once their exclusive negotiating period ends 15 days after the World Series concludes, the sooner the Holliday charade ends, the sooner the club can move on to realistically address their 2010 holes.

Keeping Holliday no longer seems realistic.

Assertions have been made here and elsewhere that he should not be re-signed by the Cardinals, despite his many contributions after having been acquired from Oakland on July 24.

One reason cited is that Holliday was a failure in what has been viewed by some as his primary role – protection for Albert Pujols in the middle of the Cardinals lineup.

Certainly that was the case in the NLDS, as Dodgers manager Joe Torre made a cognizant and obvious decision to not pitch to Pujols in any run-producing situation. As a result, Albert was issued three intentional walks in games one and two.

The clear reason for it was that heading into the DS, Holliday was not hitting well. Despite hitting 24 home runs on the season, the outfielder had just one after September 8. Holliday did connect for a solo shot in game two, but that was his only RBI of the series.

He batted just 2-for-12 (.167) in the three losses, and did not immediately atone for his game two gaffe. In Saturday’s season-ending game three, Holliday went 0-for-4 with three left on base.

This occurred despite the fact that Holliday was already October-proven. In the Rockies’ 2007 run to the World Series, Holliday had a very good postseason. His line in 11 games was .289/.319/.622 and included five home runs and 10 RBI.

Interestingly, during the 2009 regular season, the Cardinals faced the Dodgers seven times in August and won five of those games. All occurred after the Holliday trade. In those games, Torre issued one free pass to Pujols, but had his pitchers intentionally walk Holliday twice.

Not surprisingly, all seven games occurred during Holliday’s first 24 contests with the Cardinals. During that honeymoon period, he was absolutely blistering the baseball and consequently, Torre had his pitchers treat Holliday with kid gloves.

Torre wasn’t alone, as the NL as a whole gave Pujols far more opportunities to hit after Holliday’s arrival than prior. Here are the specifics of Pujols’ regular season intentional bases on balls (IBB) before July 24 and after:

Pujols’ IBB before Holliday: 34 in 411 PA = 1 per 12.1 plate appearances
Pujols’ IBB with Holliday: 10 in 289 PA = 1 per 28.9 plate appearances

In other words, the rate of Pujols’ intentional walks was more than cut in half once Holliday was batting behind him. That clearly demonstrates that the league as a whole respected the presence of Holliday.

It is surely fair to wonder why Pujols couldn’t do more with his greater opportunities to hit the ball, but his second half of the 2009 season is a different question for a different day.

If Holliday returns to the Cardinals, there is no reason to suspect the behavior exhibited by opposing managers and pitchers in 2009 would not continue in 2010 – as long as he is more consistent with the bat than he showed in his first few months as a Cardinal.

NLCS Footnote: The walk-a-thon continued in the NLCS as the Dodgers issued seven free passes in their game one loss to the Phillies. Not surprisingly, the 2-3-4 hitters received four, including two to Philly’s version of Pujols, number three hitter Ryan Howard. How much of that was by design and how much was due to the Ankiel-like wildness of 21-year-old lefty Clayton Kershaw is a fair question.

The Phils received just one free pass in game two, but Howard went deep for their only run. As such, I would expect Torre to have his hurlers pitch to the slugger more carefully the rest of the way.

Last winter, the first baseman signed with the Yankees for eight-years, $180 million. That may be a neighborhood in which the Cardinals would not want to live, especially with an Albert Pujols extension that looms even larger still in the planning stages.

From the Cardinals perspective, their direction for next two years seems clear, but things get fuzzy after that. Pujols, who may not be motivated to sign a new offer any time soon, has two years remaining on his current deal.

What happens after 2011?

Manager Tony La Russa is not under contract for 2010, but is expected to return. For at least the last 20 years, he has always signed either two or three-year deals. A new two-year commitment would take La Russa through 2011, like Pujols.

Chris Carpenter is also locked up through 2011, though the club holds a 2012 option. Early in the 2012 season, the ace will turn 37 and has a history of physical problems. Ryan Ludwick will be first-time free agent eligible following the 2011 season, as well.

No matter what happens, the Cardinals 2012 cupboard should not be entirely bare, however. Catcher Yadier Molina and emerging co-ace Adam Wainwright should be around through at least 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Still, in deciding whether or not to sign with St. Louis, could Holliday have concerns about the club’s competitiveness following the 2011 season? Though he would likely never settle for a two-year deal only, there is another possibility – build an early out into a longer-term contract.

It is a strategy Boras has used to his advantage in the recent past.

Boras clients and opting out

During the 2007 World Series, the agent announced that Alex Rodriguez was opting out of his contract with the Yankees due to concerns over the club’s future direction. Of course, it was merely a negotiating ploy to get the New Yorkers to pay more for A-Rod’s services.

It worked to the tune of ten years, $275 million, a new MLB record. It eclipsed Rodriguez’ own ten-year, $252 million deal signed with Texas, of which he completed seven years before tearing it up and starting over.

A year earlier, Boras left the Dodgers high and dry when he sold high on former Cardinals outfielder J.D. Drew. Having led Los Angeles with 100 RBI in 2006, Drew then bailed out of the final three years, $33 million remaining on his five-year, $55 million Dodgers contract.

Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti was understandably angry, stating that Drew had “changed his word”. He also noted that Boras never asked for Drew’s contract to be re-negotiated before they bolted onto the open market.

A free agent again as he was two years earlier, Drew re-emerged as a member of the Boston Red Sox. His new deal was for five years, $70 million.

I have often wondered if Boras’ and Manny Ramirez’ shady act to get Manny out of Boston and into a Dodger uniform wasn’t some kind of payback for the Drew escapade. Even if not, every new contract means a bigger cut for the agent. He never loses – he just wins less on rare occasions.

But back to Holliday and the Cardinals.

Could the wishes of the player, his agent and the club come together to enable a four-, five- or even six-year contract with an out after just two years? Why not?

The slippery slope

If the Cards gave such a deal to Holliday, why would not Albert Pujols expect the same kind of structure? After all, Pujols has been the most vocal of Cardinals players about wanting to ensure the organization fields a competitive team on an ongoing basis.

In fact, maybe Holiday and Pujols could time their perpetual two-year outs to align, regularly holding a pair of big guns to the heads of Cardinals ownership to keep the team strong – or else! La Russa could hang with the bi-annual plan as long as cares to, as well.

Some will want the head of closer Ryan Franklin, who only gave himself one chance to get the final out and continues a stretch of undependable play. Others will blast outfielder Colby Rasmus for making a rookie baserunning mistake that cost his club an additional run cushion.

Most will direct their venom toward outfielder Matt Holliday, who misplayed a line drive that should have been the 27^th Dodgers out into the error that directly led to the defeat. Some are already calling for the Cardinals not to re-sign him due to the miscue.

Certainly the error was costly but not unprecedented.

Tom Orf confirms the other time in the history of the Cardinals franchise that the club lost a post-season game in the ninth inning with the lead was game six of the 1985 World Series. That is most commonly known as the Denkinger game.

In that case, the Cardinal Nation had someone else to blame as first base umpire Don Denkinger clearly blew the call on a play in the bottom of the ninth, calling the Royals’ Jorge Orta safe when it was clear he was out. It was a momentum-changing play in a potential clincher for the Cardinals as the Royals went on to win both that contest and then the deciding game seven.

For Cardinals faithful, there is no Denkinger this time other than one of their own – Holliday. Like it or not, if the Cardinals cannot come back to win the next three games against the Dodgers, the free agent-to-be may be labeled the 2009 Cardinals version of Bill Buckner, whose infamous error in the possible clinching game six of the 1986 World Series opened the door for the Mets to come back and defeat the Red Sox in seven games.

It will be most interesting to see how both Holliday and his teammates respond to the Thursday loss. In Buckner’s case, following his error, the 1986 Red Sox still had another opportunity – another game could still be played. Just as in the previous year in the Denkinger series, the controversial play did cost the chance to clinch, but did not lose game seven.

The 2009 Cardinals are in a position somewhat reminiscent, but again, Holliday’s error did not occur in a clinching situation for his club. It remains to be seen if the Cardinals can recover. It is up to them. Saturday is a new day with another chance to win along with the opportunity to do the same thing two times more.

Will the Cardinals answer the bell or fold like their predecessors in 1985 and the Sox in 1986? If they can’t come back, Holliday may become the convenient lightning rod, fair or not.

After all, during the week prior to his arrival, the club had been swept in Houston and their cushion in the National League Central had eroded to 1.5 games.

Holliday’s numbers while wearing the uniform have been nothing short of spectacular. Coming into Sunday’s action, he leads the Cardinals in RBI (43), hits (63), batting average (.373) and slugging (.686) since his first game with them on July 24. He has hit safely in 36 of his 45 games with St. Louis, including 18 multi-hit contests.

In his 24 home games, Holliday has been even better with an average of .413 (38-for-92), with eight home runs and 24 RBI.

The offense improved accordingly, scoring 4.53 runs per game during the 45 games with Holliday on board compared to 4.15 over the 98 contests prior. That translates to an increase of better than 1/3 run per game on average, .38 runs per game to be precise.

Finally, look at the bottom line. Coming into Sunday’s action, St. Louis was a major league-best 32-13 (.711) since Holliday’s July 24 arrival. Their lead in the NL Central grew by nine games, to 10.5-game lead.

End of discussion, right?

Not exactly. All of the above was intended to set up my real intention for writing this.

Put aside for a moment the reality that the Cardinals had a relatively-easy schedule during August with eight of nine series coming against teams with losing records. Fact is they won the games they needed to win.

Here’s the rub.

Since Holliday’s arrival, Cardinals pitching has improved more than the offense.

In other words, the numbers say the impact of better pitching has been greater in terms of runs per game saved than the Holliday-driven offense has provided since July 24.

Since Holliday is known for his bat, not his defense, one cannot assign him any measurable credit for an improvement in mound performance.

Prior to the trade, the staff ERA was 3.95. Since, it has been 3.36, an improvement of .59 runs per game. Compare that to the offensive surge of .38 more runs per game noted above and I rest my case.

Of course the good news is that both the hitting and the pitching have combined to make hay during an easier stretch of the Cardinals schedule. Holliday has been an important part of that.

Yet assuming the offense, driven by Holliday’s gaudy personal numbers, has been the primary reason for the team’s recent surge would seem an inaccurate conclusion to draw.

Perhaps this means that the hitting can still reach its peak efficiency heading into October, but one does have to wonder if the pitching will correspondingly backslide.

This weekend’s sweep by the Braves at Busch Stadium indicates reason for concern as 2009 pitching stalwarts Ryan Franklin and Chris Carpenter both suffered through subpar outings.

They weren’t alone. Holliday just went 3-for-12 (.250) and Albert Pujols 2-for-12 (.167) over the just-completed three-game series as the offense could do little with Atlanta pitching in games one and three.

With the only suspense over the next three weeks being whether or not the team will secure home-field advantage, Cardinals watchers, apparently needing something to talk about, seem overly focused on free agent-to-be Matt Holliday’s future.

Until there is an announcement, if there will be one, chances are very high there will be nothing new to say before play ends this season about whether or not the power-hitting outfielder will return to St. Louis.

Yet the likes of ESPN’s Buster Olney continue to weigh in on the subject. In a Friday Insider article, Olney does a quick, back-of-the-envelope analysis of the Cardinals’ major payroll commitments for 2010 and concludes:

“Nothing in the Cardinals’ recent history tells us” that the club will “approach or surpass $100 million in payroll in order to keep him,” opines Olney.

Olney bases his historical perspective on data from Cot’s Baseball Contracts, concluding:

“…the Cardinals have never opened a season with a payroll greater than $92.1 million.”

While I am a proponent of using past behavior to help gauge what might happen in the future, this analysis seems narrow at best. Most likely, Olney has no idea what the Cardinals will do. They could shift money to future years by back-end loading their offer and/or defering money, increase payroll, restructure other players’ contracts or perhaps even trade some salary to accommodate Holliday.

It all depends on how badly ownership wants to keep him. None of us know what they are going to do.

The idea of trading salary is a realistic possibility. After all, that is how Mark DeRosa became available to St. Louis. Last winter, the Cubs binged on expensive free agents such as the unpopular and disappointing Milton Bradley and tried to acquire former National League Cy Young Award winner Jake Peavy from San Diego. One by-product was purging the popular and valuable DeRosa, who was sent to Cleveland, from where the Cardinals later rescued him.

In recent years, several Cardinals players, most recently Jason Isringhausen among them, worked with the team to restructure their contracts, deferring money out to future years to create additional current years’ payroll flexibility. Who is to say that couldn’t be attempted again if deemed necessary?

Olney concludes with this statement:

“…I’ll venture a guess (and it’s nothing more at this point): Holliday winds up signing with the Angels…”

Turns out that Olney is not alone. Some members of the Cardinal Nation (note the “the” is not capitalized!) are all up in arms over a statement reportedly made by Post-Dispatch Hall of Fame writer Rick Hummel in a recent interview with KSDK Channel 5′s Jay Randolph, Sr.

In it, the “Commish” allegedly said there is “zero chance” the Cardinals will re-sign Holliday or Joel Pineiro. One major message board where some wild discussions regularly occur has seven screens and counting of reaction, much of it predictably negative.

No one apparently bothered to check out the accuracy of the statement – until I did.

In an email exchange on Friday morning, Hummel expressed concern over how well (or poorly) people listen and the risks of the internet before clarifying:

“The quote was ‘zero’ chance they would re-resign the combination of Holliday, Pineiro and DeRosa, which I think anyone would agree with. They would have the least chance, almost ‘zero’, I would say of re-signing Pineiro,” explains Hummel.

That is what Hummel actually said to Randolph, which is most logical. I agree with him 100%.

With major long-term financial commitments to the front three in the rotation, Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright and Kyle Lohse, Pineiro most likely has priced himself out of the Cardinals willingness to pay open market value for his continued services after 2009.

Using the above logic, trading Lohse to free up money for Pineiro could be an option, but one would think there would be few takers given Lohse’s injury-plagued 2009 and huge remaining three-year commitment, not to mention having to buy out his no-trade protection.

The key point is that this has nothing to do with Holliday. Note that Hummel specifically did not rule out the possibility of the Cardinals signing both Holliday and DeRosa.

It is a shame that some can’t sit back and enjoy the ride here in 2009 and wait to get all wound up over the off-season until it actually arrives.