You knew it was just a matter of time before Scott Boras made news for one of his free agents by saying that Matt Holliday was comparable to the Yankees Mark Teixeira, who the Yankees signed last offseason for $180 million.
I am sure Boras is going to do whatever is in his power to drive up the price for Matt Holliday, which means that his statements that he wants to return to the Cardinals was just words, with no meaning behind them. What Holliday forgot to say was "and as long as they are the highest bidder for my services".
Yesterday, SI.com's Jon Heyman speculated that the Mets will be the favorites to sign Matt Holliday this offseason. I am not sure if he said this because he appears weekly on WFAN, the Mets radio station or not, but there are signs the Mets may not spend heavily this offseason. Then again, they have to do something to get their fans to stop talking about their disastrous 2009 season. Signing Matt Holliday will do that, and bring some excitement back to the Mets fans.
Heyman goes on to say that a few other teams, notably the Braves and Giants will be in the mix for Holliday's services, and that Holliday will more than likely stay in the National League.
Who could blame him? Here is what he did after getting traded to the Cardinals-in 235 ABs, he went 13-55-.353-.419-.604-1.023, after going 11-55-12-.286-.378-.454 in 346 ABs with the A's.
For fantasy/roto owners, Holliday hitting at Citifield 81 games a season is not anything to get excited about. I, for one, own Holliday at $47 in the UBA league, and I hope the Red Sox or Yankees sign him so I don't get dinged with a $5 hit to my draft day salary of $260. If not, I won't be retaining him at $47, and will take the $5 hit to my draft day salary for the third straight draft.
Holliday will certainly improve the Mets lineup, and he should have plenty of RBI opportunities, but his power production will more than likely drop hitting at Citifield. I can see an 18-105 season from Holliday in 2010 should he sign with the Mets.