Bay or Halliday
Printable View
Bay or Halliday
Opps...Holliday
I'd rather have Holliday over Bay, even though Holliday's deal is shorter, I would still rather have Matt.
And I feel like Bay was overpaid annually, not Matt.
We'll see in :confused: 2017. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
very true....but I believe Bay won't do **** in New York, while I believe Matt will continue to be a top 20 offensive force for another 4 years at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
making his contract worth carrying the last couple of years even if he performs under value.
Fili...keep this thread saved, and we'll look in 4 years.
I thought Fenway was a much better park "fit" for Bay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I agree. He could have been perennial MVP candidate plowing balls off the monster 81 days a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetMedic
'Zactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
i think whatever park effect Bay got from Fenway will be equalized by far worse NL pitching. He won't hit the HR's in that massive Mets stadium, but i think he'll be a very productive bat.
Bay signing is a lot better.
y, though, support your opinion pwease
I really hate the Bay signing because of the years and HAVING to play him in the field because you're in the NL. However, I don't like the Holliday one much either. Mainly because of years, but it's not a terrible contract by any means. Just seems like it's a lot of years for someone who had no other suitors.
Mets can afford it more than the Cardinals can and it's much less of a risk then this Hat Molliday dealQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
we were contending with daniel murphy dropping flyers left and right jason bay can't be much worse
Neither, but if I had to choose, I'd say Holliday.
Citi was 1.057 for HR compared to .964 for Fenway.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
shhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by filihok
also : ignore the fact that the Mets hit more home runs at home than on the road.