Greg Holland

[adambr2]

http://www.brewcrewball.com/2017/1/11/14238536/brewers-greg-holland-rumors

 

Brewers have interest in Greg Holland, who was one of the best closers in the game when healthy, but is coming back from TJ surgery.

 

Holland wants a 2 year deal with an opt out after 1. It'd be much more ideal if he'd take a 2 year deal, or even a 1 with a large team option and buyout. I'm sure if their interest in him is genuine it's probably as a sign and flip candidate.

[NievesNoNO]

Holland's supposed terms sound like somebody who's not overly confident in his own ability to come back and be effective. I'd pass if somebody's willing to offer the opt-out. He's basically wanting an insurance policy and wants the team to take on the risk of allowing him to work himself back to relevancy.

 

Yes, I'd say the Brewers would only be looking as a flip candidate but with the opt-out clause any return would be pretty minimal, and that's assuming he's pitching well.

 

There are still plenty of good relievers that will deliver more value for the $, IMO, especially if reports of his fastball only sitting in the high 80's during his workouts are true.

[patrickgpe]

Holland's supposed terms sound like somebody who's not overly confident in his own ability to come back and be effective. I'd pass if somebody's willing to offer the opt-out. He's basically wanting an insurance policy and wants the team to take on the risk of allowing him to work himself back to relevancy.

 

i think it has to be more that he knows the market for relievers, especially at the trade deadline and he think he can get it.

[JohnBriggs12]

The opt-out isn't the insurance policy. The second year in a deal that the team is obligated to pay if he doesn't opt out is his insurance policy. If he's a top closer in 2017, it's almost certain he'll opt out and that benefits him. Still you might get a top closer in 2017 for less than true market value if you offer that type of deal and if he's going well, teams will still be willing to deal, just as the Cubs did for Chapman last year.

[HighHeat19]

Pass.

[MKE81]

There's risk associated with every person and given the payroll, length of contract, competitiveness of the team in 2017/2018, potential upside and trade return for the Brewers it makes sense to target him. If he doesn't pan out the only negative is the money, but that's part of the risk and quite frankly it's meaningless given the payroll

[Outlander]

Holland isn't good enough for an opt out. If he is good in 2017 he opts out, if he stinks the Brewers are stuck with him for another year. Pass until Holland realizes he is the on that has to go out there are prove his worth the money once again. Holland should just take a one year deal to be a closer, which could be Milwaukee.

[DHonks]

I'm all for it. With every signing there's risk, but I've always liked TJ guys with 2 year deals.

[brewmann04]

I don't think DS will give him two years at this point but that just my thoughts.

[brewmann04]

I don't think DS will give him two years at this point but that just my thoughts.

[jerichoholicninja]

Same as Tyson Ross, whatever the Brewers could offer will just be upped by someone else.

[ewitkows]

The only way they do a deal with him is for 2 years with no opt out. He'll be out the beginning of the season so he won't have much value at trade deadline. Best case is he finishes strong and flip him in the off season.

[reillymcshane]

I dislike the opt out clause because it puts all the risk with Milwaukee. If he does well, he opts out and gets more money from someone else. If doesn't, he sticks us with a crappy contract.

 

I guess the upside is if he does really well he can become good trade bait at the deadline. But even that's likely limited, since he could opt out of the contract of whatever team trades for him. That means 2-3 months of the guy for any team that traded for him. Two months of Chapman got the Yankees a great package. But Chapman is pretty unique. Holland was pretty amazing for a few years - but I think it's asking a lot to think he could come back to the levels he pitched 3-5 years ago.

 

The Brewers are one team that can offer Holland a guaranteed closer position (assuming we are willing to do that). That's worth a lot to Holland.

 

Right now, a contract with an opt out seems to generous for the guy.

[brewcrewdue80]

What if you could get creative? Doubt a deal's ever been this way before, but 1yr, 2option years, but Holland could opt out that option?

so something like.

guaranteed -6.5mil this year

option 1-10.5mil

option 2-13mil. But Holland can opt out from.

[CheezWizHed]

I'd go for an opt out clause if he meets certain criteria. And those criteria are high enough to warrant that we can put a QO on him.

 

Then if he leaves, we at least get some compensation.

[MadThinker88]

I dislike the opt out clause because it puts all the risk with Milwaukee. If he does well, he opts out and gets more money from someone else. If doesn't, he sticks us with a crappy contract.

 

I guess the upside is if he does really well he can become good trade bait at the deadline. But even that's likely limited, since he could opt out of the contract of whatever team trades for him. That means 2-3 months of the guy for any team that traded for him. Two months of Chapman got the Yankees a great package. But Chapman is pretty unique. Holland was pretty amazing for a few years - but I think it's asking a lot to think he could come back to the levels he pitched 3-5 years ago.

 

The Brewers are one team that can offer Holland a guaranteed closer position (assuming we are willing to do that). That's worth a lot to Holland.

 

Right now, a contract with an opt out seems to generous for the guy.

 

I am not a fan of the opt out after year 1 in a deal either, BUT if he opts out, you could still put a QO on him at this point. Its just not worth as much in return to the team as this off season or previous years.

 

One thing to consider moving forward, players can only get 1 QO IN THEIR CAREER with this new CBA. That will change the some of the thinking moving forward. I'd rather have a guy now (that hasn't had the QO yet in his career), then play around with that decision process later with an opt out...

[jerichoholicninja]

I dislike the opt out clause because it puts all the risk with Milwaukee. If he does well, he opts out and gets more money from someone else. If doesn't, he sticks us with a crappy contract.

 

I guess the upside is if he does really well he can become good trade bait at the deadline. But even that's likely limited, since he could opt out of the contract of whatever team trades for him. That means 2-3 months of the guy for any team that traded for him. Two months of Chapman got the Yankees a great package. But Chapman is pretty unique. Holland was pretty amazing for a few years - but I think it's asking a lot to think he could come back to the levels he pitched 3-5 years ago.

 

The Brewers are one team that can offer Holland a guaranteed closer position (assuming we are willing to do that). That's worth a lot to Holland.

 

Right now, a contract with an opt out seems to generous for the guy.

 

I am not a fan of the opt out after year 1 in a deal either, BUT if he opts out, you could still put a QO on him at this point. Its just not worth as much in return to the team as this off season or previous years.

 

One thing to consider moving forward, players can only get 1 QO IN THEIR CAREER with this new CBA. That will change the some of the thinking moving forward. I'd rather have a guy now (that hasn't had the QO yet in his career), then play around with that decision process later with an opt out...

 

Are you sure? I thought they just couldn't get it in back to back seasons.

[MadThinker88]

Yes, I am sure on that one. It was a major discussion point among Tribe fans as we awaited the decision of Edwin E. Here are some reference links for all. I hope they help.

 

From a quick google search and a Dodger website page:

http://dodgerblue.com/new-mlb-cba-luxury-tax-thresholds-qualifying-offers-roster-size-disabled-list-change-complete-details/2016/12/01/

 

Players can no longer be extended a qualifying offer more than one time, which draft pick(s) a club loses by signing a player who rejected the one-year pact is based on luxury tax thresholds, and a barometer must be crossed in order for a team to receive compensation for losing their free agent, via Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports:

 

Follow

Ken Rosenthal ✔ @Ken_Rosenthal

Some additional details on new CBA coming, starting with this: A player no longer can receive a qualifying offer more than once.

10:41 PM - 30 Nov 2016

 

-- --- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ----- -----

From a Fan-Sided site with the Cardinals:

http://redbirdrants.com/2016/12/01/st-louis-cardinals-new-cba-reached/

 

There was one huge unexpected change. Starting next offseason, there will be no loss of a first round selection when signing a free agent with a qualifying offer. However, there will still be compensation though that will depend largely on the luxury tax. Teams over the luxury tax will forfeit a second and fifth round pick. Teams under the tax will lose a third rounder. In addition, no player can receive a qualifying offer more than once.

 

-- --- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ----- -----

And from one of the favorites: MLB Trade Rumors

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/12/mlb-mlbpa-agree-to-new-collective-bargaining-agreement.html

 

- Importantly, players will no longer be able to receive more than a single qualifying offer, Rosenthal reports (Twitter links). Players now will have ten days, instead of seven, to consider the offer, according to the AP duo.

 

All told, the above changes (not all that I copied over from MLBTR -MT88) promise to represent a rather monumental shift in the function of the qualifying offer system. It will clearly hurt free agents less, and the reduced draft compensation will likely make it slightly more likely that veterans end up being traded in the season before they hit the open market. Whether less players will be tagged with QOs remains to be seen; though there’s less to be gained for teams, there’s also less of a disincentive for players to enter free agency.

[brewmann04]

think the Brewers need to pass at this point

[JohnBriggs12]

think the Brewers need to pass at this point

 

There's an awful lot of smoke to this right now. Don't be shocked if Holland is wearing a Brewer uniform come next month. Still a hunch but McCalvy's been on this.

[Oldcity]

Holland would feel much more like a Doug Melvin signing than a Stearns signing. I would definitely be surprised if Stearns gave him a player option.

[MKE81]

It's relatively simple. The Brewers aren't competing for the playoffs this year or next and Holland wouldn't block anybody's pen spot. Regardless of a 1 or 2yr deal (with opt-out) if he's performing even remotely close to his old self then he's dealt at the break this year (and whoever acquires him would do so with the same expectations regardless - he's a FA after the season). Even if it takes him a year to get back to his old self he'll still be halfway decent this year and can be traded the 2nd year. If he doesn't perform in the first half, to the point he brings a halfway decent trade, and does perform in the 2nd half then opts-out then at least you'll get a pretty quality season from a reliever at that point, just won't benefit from adding prospects. Worst case he's here for 2yrs being halfway decent and no prospects come of it. Fine, not everyone needs to be flipped. He's absolutely worth the risk right now. In 2-3yrs he might not be but right now he is regardless of how the contract is structured

[brewmann04]

Thanks JB I hit up Adam and see

[monty57]

What if you could get creative? Doubt a deal's ever been this way before, but 1yr, 2option years, but Holland could opt out that option?

 

You could just do a mutual option, so both the team and the player have to say "yes" for the option to be exercised.

 

I'd go for an opt out clause if he meets certain criteria. And those criteria are high enough to warrant that we can put a QO on him.

 

Are we sure we're ready to pay something like $16M for a closer?

 

 

Stearns seems to have his eye set on signing a former closer this offseason, and the names I've seen are Holland, Romo and Casilla. I can get behind this. They have the opportunity to guarantee a closer spot, letting the "youngsters" get a little more experience in middle relief and setup roles. If the guy does well and they're out of the playoff race, they can then trade him and let a "youngster" get some experience closing after the deadline so he's ready for 2018.

 

A one-year deal for one of these guys would be a no-brainer, and even a two-year deal wouldn't bring too much risk. I don't like the player opt-out idea. As others have said, that puts all the risk on the Brewers, and I that's not good.

[brewcrewdue80]

I dont like the mutual option, because Im sure year 1 will have to expensive. 8-9mill. It falls in the no-win category for Milw. Hes bad, you dont pick up the option, get nothing in return but a bad overpaid year. If he's good, he passes on that option. QO is doubtful, talking 17mil+ if accepts. And with his age, id be very surprised he got a deal 60mil+ to get the better comp...but im probably remembering wrongly.

Just a long waiting game.