Wouldn't be the Worst Thing: Matt Holliday Signing Long-Term

Joel KochSenior Analyst IDecember 25, 2009

LOS ANGELES, CA - OCTOBER 08:  Matt Holliday #15 of the St. Louis Cardinals looks on during batting practice before taking on the Los Angeles Dodgers in Game Two of the NLDS during the 2009 MLB Playoffs at Dodger Stadium on October 8, 2009 in Los Angeles, California.  (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)
Jeff Gross/Getty Images

First off, it is officially Christmas now, at least where I live. So, Merry Christmas to all you readers!

Okay, happy junk out of the way and onto business. This one will be short, as getting up early for Christmas Mass puts a damper on the college lifestyle of sleeping in.

All I hear about is how signing free agent Matt Holliday to a long-term deal will be detrimental to the signing team.

Let's look at that, shall we?

Holliday will be 30 years of age on Opening Day 2010. If signed to a five-year contract, as that seems to be the number floating around right now, he would surely be worth every penny...at least, most of it.

Seriously, is any player really worth as much as they make?

There is no reason to believe that Holliday would tank faster than snot flavored Pepsi (what flavors hasn't Pepsi used in all of their brands?).

Holliday right now is entering the prime of his career, and at the end of a five-year contract (spreading years 30-34 of his life), he would just be starting on the downward slide of his career.

Holliday proved this past season that he is a National League talent. There's nothing wrong with that, but he also proved he could hit outside of Coors Field, at least in the NL.

Going on that and his strong numbers in the NL during his career, Holliday should put up the numbers to match his contract. A five-year commitment to that type of production isn't bad.

Will he receive the salary that agent Scott Boras wants him to make? No. Pretty soon, Holliday will lay down the law on Boras and have him strike a deal, or risk damaging his (Holliday's) reputation.

Will he be highly compensated? Oh yeah, for sure. Despite what Boras thinks, a contract in the range of $16-$17 million per year is quite generous.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, and at one in the morning, I don't feel like looking through them, but Holliday will be worth his contract. Eight years could be a little too much based on the fact that he would be sliding downwards for those final three years.

If Holliday accepted a contract worth, say $16 million per season for five years, I'd be happy. I also wouldn't be complaining if Holliday struggles during any of those seasons.

Why? Because I asked for it. You can't complain about that which you praised or pushed for. That's just wrong. Be happy or be mad, but the whole time, not part of the time.

Anyway, I seem to be falling off the track some. My eyelids are falling as I write this, so that could be an explanation for it.

Here is the bottom line: Holliday should live up to any contract he receives this offseason. You should always account for variable change, but based on the numbers of the past, he would be worth the money over five years.

Now if only Boras would let him sign...