Dojji

Holliday. Didn't. Drop. Off. His 2009 numbers mirror his 2008 numbers, and he hit at Coors in 2008. You're wanting to sign this guy because of 1 good year in Colorado and half a year in St. Louis. Please stop making crap up.

That's OK. You have the right to feel that way. It doesn't offend reality in the slightest. Or, really, you know, affect it.

Well it better be about Holliday because otherwise it's an exercise in utter pointlessness. You can't buy what other teams aren't selling. Unless there's something to suggest not just that we're interested in a player but that his team is actively interested in dealing him, there just is not going to be anything happening.

Well, you guys just as much as said that all you're going on is emotion. If you're just going to rant on a hitter for having slumps, heck, even Pujols has slumps. Unless you bring up something we can actually quantify this whole thing is just an excuse to vent a hundred illogical reasons to bring in Holliday over Bay.

You're using Holliday's mediocre performance in his only exposure to the American League to DEFEND him? Oy. Holliday performed at exactly the same level in 2008 -- at Coors' Field. I could throw your barb right back at you. Holliday's banking almost entirely on his 2007 campaign while Bay is a model of consistency. Given the choice, I'd take the one more likely to repeat his best numbers. Right now, that's Bay.

Couse. Just like there's an enormous difference between 36 HR's and 24. Holliday would not lead this team in home runs. He would not be second on this team in home runs. He might not even be third. Just. Sayin'.

You're describing a lot of the best hitters in the league guys. Even among high-profile power hitters, none of the complaints you're mentioning are unique to Bay.

It's a rare power hitter that doesn't strike out a lot. Comes with the swing. Even Holliday struck out 100 times. If a guy's getting on base well and hitting for power, I tend to ignore strikeouts.

This is foolishness. Holliday is a great left fielder no doubt, and would be a tremendous asset to the team, but you guys are seriously selling out to the greener grass on the other side of the hill. Jason Bay is a consistent 30+ HR hitter year in, year out. He and Holliday have the same career high in HR's, but Bay has the second, fourth, and fifth most HR's in a season between them and has crossed the 30 HR threshhold two more times than Holliday has in a career track that has been as close to comparable as you're likely to get with two ballplayers. Holliday is a good OPS hitter, but does not have that kind of raw power on his resume. Other than the truly awesome year in 2007, he's a slightly better offensive version of Kevin Youkilis, and I'm not sure what kind of "true #4 hitter" that makes him. (actually over the last 2 years I'd give the edge to Youkilis) Also, this year Jason Bay had a slightly higher OPS than Holliday, in a tougher division. You lose practically nothing if you "settle" for Bay over Holliday. I understand the sexiness of Holliday's batting average and his slightly higher OBP does make a difference, but what we're looking for is specifically a home run hitter. Both Bay and Holliday would serve more than adequately next year if called upon to do so and there are great arguments to go for either guy. Bay does NOT take a back seat to Holliday. He just has a different skillset. Finally I'd like to point out that while Bay hit .267 this year he's a career .280 hitter. He's not THAT vulnerable. Even with that, he hit for more raw power than Holliday and got on base about as much. I can't imagine that the team has done anything like stiffed or disrespected Bay when there's every possibility that he becomes the best remaining option on the market at some point in the offseason. If they did, it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Certainly adds an element of risk to an already risky Hardy acquisition doesn't it? Hardy's an interesting option but he's certainly not worth overpaying for. I'd say just because the Brewers are "looking" to bundle the two, doesn't mean they'll throw a tantrum or turn down a favorable deal for Hardy alone.

Sure, but that's true for prospects in general. Yes, I see the 53-error season in the minors just like you do. The amazing thing is that his range seems to be fine, he just has the worst hands and head in minor league baseball at third base. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to be that bad and still be a starting position player. So we might be looking at a special case here. Worse comes to worst the guy's still hitting well enough to have a possible future as a DH. That being the case, I could see why an NL team like the Brewers would want to move him.

I assume you mean defensively. His offensive numbers are fine. There's a pretty obvious solution to the problem of a bad defensive third baseman. Two actually, really. There's the Mark Teixeira route and the Ryan Braun route. As long as he can hit, I wouldn't mind bringing him on in if the price was still reasonable.

A player doesn't make a multi-year commitment on a whim. If any FA were to sign within a week of the exclusive period, it'd be pretty good evidence the signing team had talked pretty fast during the time they had exclusive access to his ear

Considering just how weak we are at 3B on the farm I'd take a look, but I think the Brewers are being foolish here. Bunding Gamel with Hardy is a really bad move because if reflects a lack of faith in both Gamel and Hardy. You probably get more overall value if you package them separately. Also, considering how rare top prospects are traded for top prospects packaging two or more young cost-controlled players together in the same deal suggests they're going after a veteran rather than after youth. Which is interesting.

Unless they can re-sign him. If the Padres think they can extend Gonzalez -- if they even think it's possible-- there's NWIH they deal him before midseason.

Even so, the groundwork for those deals was clearly laid during the exclusive peroid.

It worked somewhat better in 2003.

Lowell, Mike. Rodriguez, Alex

It'd be unlikely. You're overselling your point at "no way" though.

Certainly pitting a lot on the table. And I'm pretty sure the Phillies get a fairly raw deal.

I don't want them to "be the same." Change is cool. Especially if it might be a chance for the BETTER.

And 1986. And 2007. And 2008.